Clearly she should not be on the road, nobody in their right mind would think otherwise and you did the right thing.
Invalid argument. If you shouldn't be on the road, the argument of 'but I need my license' doesn't work.
Booga. I was gonna post something in this thread that I thought was bloody funny but foolishly read the last couple of pages before doing so. How many cool stories and anecdotes? Nice one guys, really For ruining my crap anyway joke.
I don't disagree. But it is about balancing risk on both sides of the argument which means that it is a valid question. Also I didn't ask whether you need your license, the question was what were the consequences of losing your license. Is it right, for the sake of argument, that 10000 people should be off the road so that one life can be saved ? Not an easy question to answer is it. Or maybe it is ? Th last time I looked, actually it was @Pete1950 who corrected me, about 1700 people die on the roads of the UK each year, we could dramatically cut that figure by reducing speed limits to a blanket 20 mph. Should we do that ?
All very well put but just wanted to note that, in metropolitan areas, the majority of deaths occur in 20MPH areas. Are there less than when they were 30MPH zones? When you take into account the advances in lighter weight, disc braked, better tyred, vehicles? Dunno. Yes I've seen plenty of stats but still don't know the answer on this one. Make it 3MPH everywhere, for every vehicle and human? Have a separate lane for those doing 2MPH or less. That'll probably fix that particular issue.
How about we just have bus/train passes or take a taxi as they must be a safe form of transport or walk or cycle I don't know what the answer is but I think the safer the car the less thought the driver has in caring for his fellow driver My mini has got all singing dancing traction control anti braking all switches switched on and I do feel a bit smug that i feel safer but I still Think about other drivers but.... I think that comes down to riding as I know how quickly life could change Yesterday I was followed by a young girl who was constantly checking her phone each time we stopped she was too close to read number plate and she drove as close as she could to me so I slowed down as impact could be less She had no idea what was going on around her I had more of an idea what she was doing
Testing to make sure someone is OK to do something is part of human life. People get tested for millions of different tasks everyday. Why should driving be any different? Some of these people may not of even passed a test to begin with. I don't understand what's to be scared of. If you can drive properly then you should be able to pass a test on a regular basis. If you can't pass the test then you aren't at the required standard. It's surely very simple.
not convinced thats the case. most people dont know what VDC, ASR, TRC, ABS is, chances are and simply put the older we get the more dotery we become. in charge of a ton of metal surrounded by selfish people on busier roads and with the odd bit of murphs law thrown in. a recipe for disaster
Agree completely. What if armed response were allowed to get old, poor eyesight and be generally 'doddery'. A car can be just as deadly as a gun.
What kind of argument is that ? A pencil can be just as deadly as a gun, shall we start testing people prior to allowing them pencils ?
But you don't have to be tested to carry a pencil in the first place? So a rubbish comparison. The firearms comparison is a very good one. How about a fireman? He has to be tested on a regular basis to make sure he's competent to do his role . Or would you prefer to have a doddery 82 year old come to save you and your loved ones? And if he doesn't manage it " oh well , berty used to a good fireman and what will he do if we take his hose away from him" . I really can't see the bit that you are struggling with in what people are saying. When a person gets older they can't do the same things as they used to. Allowing them to pilot a car without any form of re test is madness. If you had a family member killed by a elderly driver who shouldn't of been driving then I feel you may have a different outlook. Just out of interest what age group are the ones saying that we shouldn't have a re-test?
Who would have though that a bunch of Ducati owning motorcyclists were so risk averse and willing to curtail the benefit others gain from a slightly elevated risk, due to the ageing process, activity ?
Well there is one answer that we have pretty well invented, a self driving car, with wind assist, lane assist, brake assist, well pretty well every assist, self parking, once you have hit a certain age, test that person, and if they fail they get given this car to drive, that drives it self. I say Given, well we seem to give everything else to tom dick and Harri. Still think Eye Tests should be mandatory, and if subscribed glasses "law" to drive with on, from around the age of 50, maybe 40, and tests be logged like mot's and insurance by DVLC
No one is denying the effects of the ageing process and no one is suggesting that there is not a point at which loss of ability should result in removal of license. The question is how that should be managed. It is about balancing risk and reward across different age groups. Elderly drivers are not a major problem on the roads of the UK. No doubt if you had a family member killed by a pencil wielding lunatic you might feel differently also. As I have already said personal experience is no basis for legislation.
I think majority of elderly drivers are a major problem, they are a high risk accident waiting to happen, they cause a knock on effect, but I also think Deer are also a major problem as well, and nothing gets done about that, except lower speed limits across areas they cause accidents
Can't educate a Deer to use a crossing though. I'd much rather they could, better than me having to do 40mph through the awesome roads around the Ashdown forest.
No they can be culled, and should be, the population explosion is getting worse by the year, they move further off the forest into towns, making them even more unpredictable, As much as I love them to look at, I rather eat them, and not have to worry about hitting them as often, as many as I have hit, I have been very lucky to never do any real damage to the car. There is a stat be banded about, that you need to cull 200k in the UK for the next 10 years to get them back to a manageable level like they used to be. As stats goes, I have hit more deer than anything else in my driving career, not to mention close calls than anything else on the road, and considering that includes on average a year driving is 40k to once peak 75k miles a year around the country. Back to elderly drivers, and not just elderly, when it comes to deer, golden rule just drive at it and hit it, unless you are 100% sure not thing else on the road, and you can drive around it etc. you are far more likely to survive with no injury than avoid it and hit an oncoming car, or worse an oak tree on the side of the road, (see previuos post about trees and over hanging trees across our roads) far too many drivers try to avoid, or elderly see too late and panic and avoid.
Nobody mention 77 year old PSV drivers crashing into a supermarket and killing two people one of them being an 8 year old passenger. Compulsory retesting should certainly be used for bus drivers.
