Liverpool: Two Schoolgirls Fighting For Their Lives And Three Seriously Injured After Car Ploughs Into Group

Two schoolgirls are fighting for their lives and another three have been seriously injured after a car ploughed into a group of children waiting to board the bus home from school in Liverpool. The accident occurred outside the Belvedere Academy in Toxteth, around 3.30pm, when a car, driven by an 80-year-old woman, lost control, mounted a kerb, and hit the group.

The injured girls are aged between 11 and 13.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/12/five-children-hit-by-car-in-liverpool-_n_9219688.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Horrible....wishes sent for the injured and their families.
It was in the news recently that lollipop men and women are being drastically cut back.
People over a certain age should be retested in order to keep their driving licences....a few weeks ago an elderly driver ploughed into a Costa coffee shop causing death and destruction.

Maybe if the above two facts were remedied we would see less of these horrific accidents.

and maybe society should pay for those "tests over a certain age"???

or then again perhaps we should just leave "older" people, especially in rural areas utterly isolated, unable to shop, visit docytors or whatever...there ya go , te pensions crisi solved..kill the old fuckers off.. leave em to starve. Theres no rural public transport to speak of, taxis are a waste of space outside of major conurbations (and cost a fortune for even the smallest journey

all that will happen is ..oh right mr XXXX time for your 3 yearly test is it...right that will be 2000 pounds please....

and DONT say other wise.....it already happens with tradesmen like sparkeys....


for every "disaster perpetrated by an elderly driver there are far more caused by young idiots...

that this is so is reflected in insurance prices, you can be certain that if it was otherwise older drivers would face increased premiums, NOT reduced ones...

once again the monkeys see what the press want them to and like the obedient monkeys they are , climb on board the bandwagon, regardless of the sense of their cause...

stuff it.....make the minimum age for holding a driving licence 25.
make driving licences subject to the SAME checks etc as firearms licences
and one strike and you are out gfor life, for drink driving, with ZERO alcohol level


THEN, and only then should you need to look elsewhere.....

See, Syl? You can't propose a policy change without Vic jumping in and making it out as though you're eager for innocent people to die.

Ben_Reilly wrote:See, Syl? You can't propose a policy change without Vic jumping in and making it out as though you're eager for innocent people to die.

funny how you are so damn sensitive about that , yet you allow posters like tommy and nicko to be accused by implication of MUCH worse, and take NO action against the offenders...

crying wolf much methinks...

And re my post ...yes i will make such statements when people post garbage, without thought for "unintended consequences"....

if people wish to post their "policy" ideas, then they had better be damn sure of adressing such issues....or face the realistic accusation that in fact they actually dont care and are incapable of thinking beyond their own narrow agendas....Not to mention that they are indeed being monkeys for the press....

Lord Foul wrote:and maybe society should pay for those "tests over a certain age"???

or then again perhaps we should just leave "older" people, especially in rural areas utterly isolated, unable to shop, visit docytors or whatever...there ya go , te pensions crisi solved..kill the old fuckers off.. leave em to starve. Theres no rural public transport to speak of, taxis are a waste of space outside of major conurbations (and cost a fortune for even the smallest journey

all that will happen is ..oh right mr XXXX time for your 3 yearly test is it...right that will be 2000 pounds please....

and DONT say other wise.....it already happens with tradesmen like sparkeys....


for every "disaster perpetrated by an elderly driver there are far more caused by young idiots...

that this is so is reflected in insurance prices, you can be certain that if it was otherwise older drivers would face increased premiums, NOT reduced ones...

once again the monkeys see what the press want them to and like the obedient monkeys they are , climb on board the bandwagon, regardless of the sense of their cause...

stuff it.....make the minimum age for holding a driving licence 25.
make driving licences subject to the SAME checks etc as firearms licences
and one strike and you are out gfor life, for drink driving, with ZERO alcohol level


THEN, and only then should you need to look elsewhere.....

The bottom line is if people are incapable of driving they should not be behind the wheel.

and that applies equally to ALL ages...and the young drivers are the least able.....as shown by statistics...

along with reps and executives

BMW drivers
Audi drivers
VW drivers
and now horifyingly
Seat drivers

Without knowing the circumstances, I don't think you can say that a person over a certain age is going to be dangerous when driving. It might have been a fault with the car or something. I do think that if elderly people feel that they're not as competent as they were when driving, they should either give it up or drive more carefully. That goes for anyone though. Driving takes concentration, so if you're distracted or upset, leave the car at home.

Lord Foul wrote:and that applies equally to ALL ages...and the young drivers are the least able.....as shown by statistics...

along with reps and executives

BMW drivers
Audi drivers
VW drivers
and now horifyingly
Seat drivers

Of course it apples to all ages. If someone is incapable of driving they should not be granted a licence be they 18 or 80.

It's ridiculous to think that people in their 80's have the same reflexes as when they passed their tests decades earlier.
Some might, many don't. And to read of anyone being mowed down because a driver is not capable of driving is sickening.
Eye and ear tests are free for OAP's in GB by the way......not sure why you think it would cost them a fortune to be pronounced fit to drive.

Raggamuffin wrote:Without knowing the circumstances, I don't think you can say that a person over a certain age is going to be dangerous when driving. It might have been a fault with the car or something. I do think that if elderly people feel that they're not as competent as they were when driving, they should either give it up or drive more carefully. That goes for anyone though. Driving takes concentration, so if you're distracted or upset, leave the car at home.

Unless you are bionic, eye sight and hearing fades with time....reflexes slow down too.
At present people don't need to retake a driving test as they age....I think they should.
The problem is that many people just don't realise how bad their driving is.....left to themselves they would carry on regardless.

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and that applies equally to ALL ages...and the young drivers are the least able.....as shown by statistics...

along with reps and executives

BMW drivers
Audi drivers
VW drivers
and now horifyingly
Seat drivers

Of course it apples to all ages. If someone is incapable of driving they should not be granted a licence be they 18 or 80.

It's ridiculous to think that people in their 80's have the same reflexes as when they passed their tests decades earlier.
Some might, many don't. And to read of anyone being mowed down because a driver is not capable of driving is sickening.
Eye and ear tests are free for OAP's in GB by the way......not sure why you think it would cost them a fortune to be pronounced fit to drive.

untill you want a medical for your driving licence...which then has to be paid for....

and, miss slippery, THAT is not what you said...you said "driving test"
and how much will the driving test centers charge once such a stupid requirement becomes law...wow...what a cash cow...especially once such places become privatised (as they will be within the next 5-10 years) as said sparkies needing certification every so often have to pay £1000's

I know what I would do about the whole "driving situation" in this country...but I doubt you would like it....and WHY wouldnt you like it.....becasue of course it would affect YOU along with everyone else who wished to take up the PRIVILIDGE of driving....

cost of driving test

curently £23 for theory ....are you going to make the older drivers pass that first too?
then £62 for practical....

so currently £95 every 3 years...

BUT, given that the older driver will be a "special test" the charges would be £????????????????

also the test centers would not be able to cope with the increased numbers of tests...

and...to be fair the worst danger on the road is the overconfidant young idiot...followed closely by the mums on the school run

perhaps we should test EVERY driver every 3 years.....

Actually Vic, lots of elderly people give up their cars and get minicabs etc to go shopping as it works out cheaper than running and taxing a car.
Just saying

Last report on facebook, no serious injuries, a broken leg, broken arms and cuts and bruises.

eddie wrote:Actually Vic, lots of elderly people give up their cars and get minicabs etc to go shopping as it works out cheaper than running and taxing a car.
Just saying

yeah right....in the middle of rural cumbria (or wherever)

20 miles to a supermarket and back... plus either waiting time Or an wait for another cab to come and fetch you

once a month and return with a months shopping and you can stuff it if you buy anything bulky or smelly...or elsewise "odd"

besides, we are NOT talking about those who willingly give up independance...they are the sort that calmly walk into fuzzy's prison camps

we are talking about imposing a blanket "control" on all elderly people ...regardless....

now we have had a similar conversation about a different issue


but funny innit....if it saves one life its worth it...


yet when I propose a measure that would undoubtedly save hundreds, if not 1000's no one wants to know cos it will bite them...

besides, you cant comment...you have a "vested interest"....

nicko wrote:Last report on facebook, no serious injuries, a broken leg, broken arms and cuts and bruises.

so no-one "fighting for their life" then nicko

like I suspected

syl, like tommy regularly does on other subjects , had a suitably simian "knee jerk reaction" to deliberately stirring press reports..

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:See, Syl? You can't propose a policy change without Vic jumping in and making it out as though you're eager for innocent people to die.

funny how you are so damn sensitive about that , yet you allow posters like tommy and nicko to be accused by implication  of MUCH worse, and take NO action against the offenders...

crying wolf much methinks...

And re my post ...yes i will make such statements when people post garbage, without thought for "unintended consequences"....

if people wish to post their "policy" ideas, then they had better be damn sure of adressing such issues....or face the realistic accusation that in fact they actually dont care and are incapable of thinking beyond their own narrow agendas....Not to mention that they are indeed being monkeys for the press....

I just noticed that it seems to be a reflex of yours -- if someone proposes an idea you disagree with, you immediately accuse them of wanting people to die.

It's an emotion-driven debating crutch, really -- like the old saw, "Won't someone think about the children?!" every time a social change comes about.

Plus, it's simply a shitty thing to accuse someone of.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

funny how you are so damn sensitive about that , yet you allow posters like tommy and nicko to be accused by implication  of MUCH worse, and take NO action against the offenders...

crying wolf much methinks...

And re my post ...yes i will make such statements when people post garbage, without thought for "unintended consequences"....

if people wish to post their "policy" ideas, then they had better be damn sure of adressing such issues....or face the realistic accusation that in fact they actually dont care and are incapable of thinking beyond their own narrow agendas....Not to mention that they are indeed being monkeys for the press....

I just noticed that it seems to be a reflex of yours -- if someone proposes an idea you disagree with, you immediately accuse them of wanting people to die.

It's an emotion-driven debating crutch, really -- like the old saw, "Won't someone think about the children?!" every time a social change comes about.

Plus, it's simply a shitty thing to accuse someone of.

so is accusing people of being "nonces"

but I note you have taken no issue about that.. I can therfore only assume that shitty things said by the left are ok if they are aimed at the right.... or indeed ANY dissent to leftist ideas but not vice-versa.

and the fact is ...that it (what I say) is a correct, albeit an unpleasant, fact (that there are serious unintended consequences) and no reasonable (I.e. sufficiently strong) co-proposal to mitigate these is highly relevant

See all parties are guilty sometimes of this, the right no less than the left, even I am guilty of it...but at least I'm out front with it when I dont care...

on the other hand, the fact a policy which you or some other lefty proposes puts (for instance) some of "ours" (regardless of what the "ours" is) at some sort of increased risk
and you then defend that risk as acceptable or dismiss it as statistically irrelevant shows an attitude of uncaring adgenda-ism. Moreover your permanent lack of robust solutions to such negatives of your espoused policies is a clear indication that you are totally commited to pushing a half baked agenda with not CARE of the risks...

Its one thing to SAY you in fact care....but you either "dont really" OR you have NO idea of the impossibility of your proposed solutions to such negative given the current socio political system.

whats that you say ...of course you care ...we will make the law apply properly......well yeah...right....

now bear in mind from here on I'm talking britain...YMMV....


1 we have heard ALL that lefty guff before and it aint happened...you would sooner send a rapist to school (in gaol) for a few years, than lock him up forever
2 you are scared of the EHCR (obviously not america)
3 no amount of "law" (and this applies over your way too) will stop the law breaker...laws are only for law abiding citizens....

As to the issues in the O/P if society wants this "testing" then society shoyuld pay for and provide it
It should also (and regardless of the issues raised in the O/P) make certain that elderly people who can no longer drive in fact DO have the transport they need....whatever and whenever their requirements.


since the O/P failed to adress these issues with the post in general, and merely suggested weeding out the unfit drivers. I can only be left with the conclusion that the poster doesnt care about the fate of those thus declared "unfit" If he/she did then they would have proposed such mitigation as they could reasonably think of....

so in summation

stop crying about me being "shitty" when you permit some posters to post even worse about some less favoured on here
and

if you dont want to be accused of being "uncaring" then lets have proposals of mitigation when you (or anyone really) posts ideas that they like as a policy...

If people have been accusing one another of being "nonces," that is a pretty terrible thing to do -- as I just this second learned because it's British slang that we don't use in the U.S.

Syl was throwing out an idea on a chat board, not making a motion in the damn Parliament ... and you know as well as I, she doesn't want to land anybody in the poor house, so save your venom for those who deserve it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:If people have been accusing one another of being "nonces," that is a pretty terrible thing to do -- as I just this second learned because it's British slang that we don't use in the U.S.

uhm...it was raised at some considerable length when nicko was thus targeted a bit back (before christmas....so I aint searching for the thread..you may have better tools than me? )
but...whilst I may be an ornery old devil...I have never lied to you or anyone else...i dont do falsity...take my word for it...)

and it was more recently used against Tommy, who whilst I have little time for his brain power or racist views, I dont see as a "villan" or even a bad guy....what you see is what you get...same as me....


Ok I accept you cant view EVERY thread, (I should know) but at least ONE(being one of a number, not one in particular....) of your mods WAS on those threads

Syl was throwing out an idea on a chat board, not making a motion in the damn Parliament ... and you know as well as I, she doesn't want to land anybody in the poor house, so save your venom for those who deserve it. venom??...nah you aint seen me being venemous...yet (well unless you were watching me v's he who shall not be named) I can be much much "shitty-er" but to do it in style requires a lot of thought.......

Humans being what they are...........I assume the worst ....then I'm either pleasently surprised or vindicated. I am rarely "disappointed", and then only by someone being worse that I thought they could possibly be...

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:If people have been accusing one another of being "nonces," that is a pretty terrible thing to do -- as I just this second learned because it's British slang that we don't use in the U.S.

uhm...it was raised at some considerable length when nicko was thus targeted a bit back (before christmas....so I aint searching for the thread..you may have better tools than me? )
but...whilst I may be an ornery old devil...I have never lied to you or anyone else...i dont do falsity...take my word for it...)

and it was more recently used against Tommy, who whilst I have little time for his brain power or racist views, I dont see as a "villan" or even a bad guy....what you see is what you get...same as me....


Ok I accept you cant view EVERY thread, (I should know)  but at least ONE(being one of a number, not one in particular....) of your mods WAS on those threads

Syl was throwing out an idea on a chat board, not making a motion in the damn Parliament ... and you know as well as I, she doesn't want to land anybody in the poor house, so save your venom for those who deserve it.  venom??...nah you aint seen me being venemous...yet (well unless you were watching me v's he who shall not be named) I can be much much "shitty-er" but to do it in style requires a lot of thought.......

Humans being what they are...........I assume the worst ....then I'm either pleasently surprised or vindicated. I am rarely "disappointed", and then only by someone being worse that I thought they could possibly be...  

Again, first I heard of it and I didn't know what the word meant in the first place -- I may have seen it before and just assumed you all were fighting again as usual ...

I'll see if I can find it.

OK, let's not be accusing one another of pedophilia, wanting people to die, um ... wanting to eat people ... wanting the terrorists to win ... wanting New Coke to come back to the shelves ... a little help anyone?

BTW, there were roughly 18,000 posts on this site between December and January. That's a lot to read.

I wasnt suggesting you did ben.....

As I said...I may make mistakes...but I dont lie....

here's one

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13856-ten-more-pakistani-Muslim-child-rapists#265626

you dont I assume have a tool to search for simply one keyword on the board?

"wanting people to die" Ben, check sassy's posts!

Lord Foul wrote:I wasnt suggesting you did ben.....

As I said...I may make mistakes...but I dont lie....

here's one

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13856-ten-more-pakistani-Muslim-child-rapists#265626

I saw it, I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that I did

I'm just saying that if I'd seen that and known what it meant, I would have said something then.

Where do you people get the idea that it's OK to accuse people of being pedophiles or advocating murder on web forums, anyway? Didn't your parents raise you right?

And yes, I do mean YOU people.

Lord Foul wrote:besides, you cant comment...you have a "vested interest"....

Who me???? I'm not an OAP!!!!

eddie wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:besides, you cant comment...you have a "vested interest"....

Who me???? I'm not an OAP!!!!

Lord Foul wrote:

eddie wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:besides, you cant comment...you have a "vested interest"....

Who me???? I'm not an OAP!!!!

I'm going off you

Lord Foul wrote:

nicko wrote:Last report on facebook, no serious injuries, a broken leg, broken arms and cuts and bruises.

so no-one "fighting for their life" then nicko

like I suspected

syl, like tommy regularly does on other subjects , had a suitably simian "knee jerk reaction" to deliberately stirring press reports..

One girl has serious head injuries, others have facial cuts, broken arms, legs and hips,  and thank God no one is fighting for their lives, it's still horrendous though.

It's not a 'knee jerk reaction' by the way. I have thought for some time that people who are in their 70's  should have eye and ear tests and resit their driving test.

Yes it may inconvenience them....but that's a small price to pay to ensure they are safe to drive surely.
Can you imagine how devastating it would be to an oap if they caused a serious crash because they were not capable?

Syl does have a point Vic. Once you hit a certain age, don't know if 70 is it, you should have to resit a test and also a practical.

It's for the same reason we won't allow people below a certain age, to sit behind a wheel.

I see Victor is the only one with any sense on the topic

I left not saying anything to more information has come to light.
Nobody knows the cause of the accident, but because the driver is 80, this plays on the mind of every other poster commenting here, subconsciously, other than Victor or myself.
That means people have decided to make some very prejudiced and discrimination points, where again subconsciously in their minds its because of the ladys age, and old age error  caused the crash. Even though she has not been arrested or charged.

People need to take a very close look at what they are laying claim to here before any known evidence has been given.

Now after 70 already in the UK, people have to renew their licence and they after every 3 years.

So for example and hypothetically , she renewed her licence a week ago. Based on then this being investigated, would any here then make her take the test again based on the evidence either proving her at fault or not at fault?

Would that be reason based on that to make her take the test again?

No, because again it will be understanding what did cause the crash. where again she may have swerved to avoid hitting something, who knows, but people have placed the blame soley and squarely on the age, before hearing the evidence

Then hitting a certain age?

When will that be ladies?

Will it be the same age for each of us?

Of course not, as how we age will differ dependent on the lifestyle led.

What you are doing and saying is that when they reach a certain age, you are then basically reclassifying them as disabled, unfit to then be legally able to do many things

So what are we learning here?
That we do not know any facts and how one single point in the story, has been the catalyst, for then posters to come out with some of the worst ageist discrimination I have ever heard.

So we already have a renewal system in place, which clearly she has passed and renewed 3 times. So to claim this crash would have been prevented by then banning all people when they reach a certain age is appalling. Its not based on reason, but an emotive
 backlash knee jerk reaction from posters.

Considering people are living longer and longer and that we already have renewal of tests, means there is no just reason to castigate all the elderly, by having an upper age limit.

Didge wrote:I see Victor is the only one with any sense on the topic

I left not saying anything to more information has come to light.
Nobody knows the cause of the accident, but because the driver is 80, this plays on the mind of every other poster commenting here, subconsciously, other than Victor or myself.
That means people have decided to make some very prejudiced and discrimination points, where again subconsciously in their minds its because of the ladys age, and old age error  caused the crash. Even though she has not been arrested or charged.

People need to take a very close look at what they are laying claim to here before any known evidence has been given.

Now after 70 already in the UK, people have to renew their licence and they after every 3 years.

So for example and hypothetically , she renewed her licence a week ago. Based on then this being investigated, would any here then make her take the test again based on the evidence either proving her at fault or not at fault?

Would that be reason based on that to make her take the test again?

No, because again it will be understanding what did cause the crash.

Then hitting a certain age?

When will that be ladies?

Will it be the same age for each of us?

Of course not, as how we age will differ dependent on the lifestyle led.

What you are doing and saying is that when they reach a certain age, you are then basically reclassifying them as disabled, unfit to then be legally able to do many things

So what are we learning here?
That we do not know any facts and how one single point in the story, has been the catalyst, for then posters to come out with some of the worst ageist discrimination I have ever heard.

So we already have a renewal system in place, which clearly she has passed and renewed 3 times. So to claim this crash would have been prevented by then banning all people when they reach a certain age is appalling. Its not based on reason, but an emotive
 backlash knee jerk reaction from posters.

Considering people are living longer and longer and that we already have renewal of tests, means there is no just reason to castigate all the elderly, by having an upper age limit.

Agreed.  People are living longer and we are expected to work until our late 60's. If we are capable of working surely we are capable of driving? It does worry me, what about people with physical jobs or those with responsibilities at work that put others lives at risk?

As far as I know when you renew your license at 70, 73/6/9 and so on  you asses yourself...it can be done online in a few minutes, no mental health, eye, ear test certificates are required.
Faculties can diminish slowly, many people don't realise they are not fit to drive till something happens to stop them.

Men and women should be tested at the same age.

I'm not sure why you think this is a way to 'get at' older people......it's a way to ensure their own safety as well as every other road user.

No one has said the woman who was involved in the accident in the OP was unfit to drive, it just brought forward the suggestion that maybe people who are 80 (as she was) should be tested to ensure that they are fit to drive.

feelthelove wrote:

Didge wrote:I see Victor is the only one with any sense on the topic

I left not saying anything to more information has come to light.
Nobody knows the cause of the accident, but because the driver is 80, this plays on the mind of every other poster commenting here, subconsciously, other than Victor or myself.
That means people have decided to make some very prejudiced and discrimination points, where again subconsciously in their minds its because of the ladys age, and old age error  caused the crash. Even though she has not been arrested or charged.

People need to take a very close look at what they are laying claim to here before any known evidence has been given.

Now after 70 already in the UK, people have to renew their licence and they after every 3 years.

So for example and hypothetically , she renewed her licence a week ago. Based on then this being investigated, would any here then make her take the test again based on the evidence either proving her at fault or not at fault?

Would that be reason based on that to make her take the test again?

No, because again it will be understanding what did cause the crash.

Then hitting a certain age?

When will that be ladies?

Will it be the same age for each of us?

Of course not, as how we age will differ dependent on the lifestyle led.

What you are doing and saying is that when they reach a certain age, you are then basically reclassifying them as disabled, unfit to then be legally able to do many things

So what are we learning here?
That we do not know any facts and how one single point in the story, has been the catalyst, for then posters to come out with some of the worst ageist discrimination I have ever heard.

So we already have a renewal system in place, which clearly she has passed and renewed 3 times. So to claim this crash would have been prevented by then banning all people when they reach a certain age is appalling. Its not based on reason, but an emotive
 backlash knee jerk reaction from posters.

Considering people are living longer and longer and that we already have renewal of tests, means there is no just reason to castigate all the elderly, by having an upper age limit.

Agreed.  People are living longer and we are expected to work until our late 60's. If we are capable of working surely we are capable of driving? It does worry me, what about people with physical jobs or those with responsibilities at work that put others lives at risk?

Hi FTL

I think people forgot that already a substantial amount of people in this country have disabilities, where in fact they are able to accomplish a great many things. This was a tragic accident and  as much as my heart goes out to the families and victims, it also goes out to this lady. Who no doubt must be going through hell over what has happened and will no doubt struggle to get behind the wheel of a car again anyway after such a traumatic accident.

Didge wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Agreed.  People are living longer and we are expected to work until our late 60's. If we are capable of working surely we are capable of driving? It does worry me, what about people with physical jobs or those with responsibilities at work that put others lives at risk?

Hi FTL

I think people forgot that already a substantial amount of people in this country have disabilities, where in fact they are able to accomplish a great many things. This was a tragic accident and  as much as my heart goes out to the families and victims, it also goes out to this lady. Who no doubt must be going through hell over what has happened and will no doubt struggle to get behind the wheel of a car again anyway after such a traumatic accident.

Yes, she must be feeling terrible whatever the circumstances

Syl wrote:As far as I know when you renew your license at 70, 73/6/9 and so on  you asses yourself...it can be done online in a few minutes, no mental health, eye, ear test certificates are required.
Faculties can diminish slowly, many people don't realise they are not fit to drive till something happens to stop them.

Men and women should be tested at the same age.

I'm not sure why you think this is a way to 'get at' older people......it's a way to ensure their own safety as well as every other road user.

No one has said the woman who was involved in the accident in the OP was unfit to drive, it just brought forward the suggestion that maybe people who are 80 (as she was) should be tested to ensure that they are fit to drive.

Which the driver has to declare any problems to then notify the DVLA which again can happened to people at any age in their life.
What you are saying is you trust younger people who have developed disabilities to declare but not the elderly?
It works the same way for everyone, hence why a whole group is not penalized. Where it places the onus individually, as it should be. 

You then go off all possible negative impairments later in life or even then not at all, to say then all the elderly should be penalized. That is just blatantly absurd, because then you would have to stop every single driver in case they had a heart attack. Or a stroke. Or a seizure.
The only reason to retest anyone would be to introduce for everyone a set number of licence points

You are fundamentally inadvertently blaming the age as the factor, as you have been arguing off this to then discriminate against the elderly.
The disabilities are known which once diagnosed with, the person has to surrender their licenceg. Which is the same for every driver if they then end up surring disabilities. You want to force through  a measure that declares them disabled on reaching a certain age. Where they could be very capable of driving for another 20 years.
You jumped on her age and then the debate led off the age, as if it was the reason for the crash.. I dread to think if there was such an accident,. where a driver in a such a traumatic accident was already registered disabled.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:As far as I know when you renew your license at 70, 73/6/9 and so on  you asses yourself...it can be done online in a few minutes, no mental health, eye, ear test certificates are required.
Faculties can diminish slowly, many people don't realise they are not fit to drive till something happens to stop them.

Men and women should be tested at the same age.

I'm not sure why you think this is a way to 'get at' older people......it's a way to ensure their own safety as well as every other road user.

No one has said the woman who was involved in the accident in the OP was unfit to drive, it just brought forward the suggestion that maybe people who are 80 (as she was) should be tested to ensure that they are fit to drive.

Which the driver has to declare any problems to then notify the DVLA which again can happened to people at any age in their life.
What you are saying is you trust younger people who have developed disabilities to declare but not the elderly?
It works the same way for everyone, hence why a whole group is not penalized. Where it places the onus individually, as it should be. 

You then go off all possible negative impairments later in life or even then not at all, to say then all the elderly should be penalized. That is just blatantly absurd, because then you would have to stop every single driver in case they had a heart attack. Or a stroke. Or a seizure.
The only reason to retest anyone would be to introduce for everyone a set number of licence points

You are fundamentally inadvertently blaming the age as the factor, as you have been arguing off this to then discriminate against the elderly.
The disabilities are known which once diagnosed with, the person has to surrender their licenceg. Which is the same for every driver if they then end up surring disabilities. You want to force through  a measure that declares them disabled on reaching a certain age. Where they could be very capable of driving for another 20 years.
You jumped on her age and then the debate led off the age, as if it was the reason for the crash.. I dread to think if there was such an accident,. where a driver in a such a traumatic accident was already registered disabled.

They  declare medical problems if
A...if they are aware of them, like I said many problems creep up slowly with age and the person may not be aware how badly their eyes/ears/reflexes/memory have deteriorated.

B...if they choose to divulge.. they may not.

In the case of anyone of any age..if they are diagnosed with a condition which would make them a danger to drive, and they cant be dissuaded from driving, their Dr has a responsibility to inform the DVLA and speak to a medical advisor.

Where did I suggest that I wanted to "force through a measure that declares them disabled on reaching a certain age?"
I think anyone should be allowed to drive whatever age they are....as long as they are fit enough to do so.

It is a fact that as people age their bodies and minds deteriorate....maybe not significantly, but why take chances with peoples lives?

A test would simply ensure that the person who has reached 70 plus is still able enough to drive.....not sure why you are so against that, it's just simple common sense..

plus, given my age, (61)

I was faster than 99% of those who took that reaction test that was posted.....

a reaction time of .159 seconds 159 miliseconds....

I dont see how folks can say with any certainty how and when reactions decrease...

common sense?? so is making a driving licence as hard to get as a firearms certificate....

THAT would save 100's if not 1000's of lives....


and yet.........

I don't know anything about applying for a firearms licences.

I imagine you have to have all your mental faculties and be able to see and hear clearly in order to be licenced to carry a gun around legally.
If not maybe that should be reviewed too..

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which the driver has to declare any problems to then notify the DVLA which again can happened to people at any age in their life.
What you are saying is you trust younger people who have developed disabilities to declare but not the elderly?
It works the same way for everyone, hence why a whole group is not penalized. Where it places the onus individually, as it should be. 

You then go off all possible negative impairments later in life or even then not at all, to say then all the elderly should be penalized. That is just blatantly absurd, because then you would have to stop every single driver in case they had a heart attack. Or a stroke. Or a seizure.
The only reason to retest anyone would be to introduce for everyone a set number of licence points

You are fundamentally inadvertently blaming the age as the factor, as you have been arguing off this to then discriminate against the elderly.
The disabilities are known which once diagnosed with, the person has to surrender their licenceg. Which is the same for every driver if they then end up surring disabilities. You want to force through  a measure that declares them disabled on reaching a certain age. Where they could be very capable of driving for another 20 years.
You jumped on her age and then the debate led off the age, as if it was the reason for the crash.. I dread to think if there was such an accident,. where a driver in a such a traumatic accident was already registered disabled.

They  declare medical problems if
A...if they are aware of them, like I said many problems creep up slowly with age and the person may not be aware how badly their eyes/ears/reflexes/memory have deteriorated.

B...if they choose to divulge.. they may not.

In the case of anyone of any age..if they are diagnosed with a condition which would make them a danger to drive, and they cant be dissuaded from driving, their Dr has a responsibility to inform the DVLA and speak to a medical advisor.

Where did I suggest that I wanted to "force through a measure that declares them disabled on reaching a certain age?"
I think anyone should be allowed to drive whatever age they are....as long as they are fit enough to do so.

It is a fact that as people age their bodies and minds deteriorate....maybe not significantly, but why take chances with peoples lives?

A test would simply ensure that the person who has reached 70 plus is still able enough to drive.....not sure why you are so against that, it's just simple common sense..

Again you are saying the elderly are then not trustworthy, but those younger who develop disabilities will declare.
All you are telling me is that those elderly have an increased chance of developing problems.
Its up to people to tel the DVLA and then for them to then decide whether or not the individual can drive.
The doctor has the same responsibility again with any driver.
Why on earth do you keep making claims as if they are separate, when they are not.
So at ever turn you have stated for retests but think this should only happen tot he elderly, which again is discriminating against them based on them only having an increased risk of developing a disability
Again with each person they age differently, and I think its appalling what you are even attempting to argue off, where again, you are saying the elderly are thus going to be disingenuous and to not be honest and tell the DLVA
The same rule applies to everyone. This is not a dictatorship, but a democracy, where we allow people themselves to inform, as to introduce a check and test system, would cost an absolute fortune.

Not only that, are you able to provide any stats on people in age groups not telling the DVLA?

So your reason to introduce a test is centered on and to target the elderly based off a poor and quite frankly prejudice on them, which this prejudice is born not from any reason, but of a possible increase in risks to health problems and that they may not tell the DVLA, which those young can do the same.


A test should only be required where people are negligent through a point system
One rule that applies to all, as your method is making and charging that the elderly are not able to decide or be informed medically whether they can drive or not. That again is appalling you would render them to a status of mistrust and of a lack of responsibility

Didge wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Agreed.  People are living longer and we are expected to work until our late 60's. If we are capable of working surely we are capable of driving? It does worry me, what about people with physical jobs or those with responsibilities at work that put others lives at risk?

Hi FTL

I think people forgot that already a substantial amount of people in this country have disabilities, where in fact they are able to accomplish a great many things. This was a tragic accident and  as much as my heart goes out to the families and victims, it also goes out to this lady. Who no doubt must be going through hell over what has happened and will no doubt struggle to get behind the wheel of a car again anyway after such a traumatic accident.

It could have been dangerous driving of course - being 80 doesn't mean she's not capable of that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Hi FTL

I think people forgot that already a substantial amount of people in this country have disabilities, where in fact they are able to accomplish a great many things. This was a tragic accident and  as much as my heart goes out to the families and victims, it also goes out to this lady. Who no doubt must be going through hell over what has happened and will no doubt struggle to get behind the wheel of a car again anyway after such a traumatic accident.

It could have been dangerous driving of course - being 80 doesn't mean she's not capable of that.

I never said it could not have been.
Hence why its best to await the evidence.
Though as reasoned it would not then be a reason to jump off her age to call for an age limit.
Even more so when already there is many road accidents, which does not generate any such claim to then call for an age limit, where in general many drivers have been negligent



In reported road traffic accidents in 2014:

• road deaths increased by 4% compared with 2013, rising to 1,775
  
  
• the number of people seriously injured increased by 5% to 22,807 in 2014
  
  
• there was a total of 194,477 casualties of all severities in reported road traffic accidents during 2014
  
  
• a total of 146,322 personal-injury road traffic accidents were reported to the police in 2014 - of these accidents, 1,658 resulted in at least 1 fatality
  
  
• three-quarters of the increase in road deaths were pedestrian casualties
  
  
• total reported child casualties rose by 6.2% to 16,727, compared with 2013 - there was a similar rise of 5% in the number of seriously injured child casualties and 5 more child deaths in 2014
  
  
• traffic volumes rose by 2.4% between 2013 and 2014 - this is the highest rate of growth of motor vehicle traffic since 1996
  
  

Blimey.....and breathe.

I am not saying the elderly would lie and keep quiet about deteriorating health (though some might....just cos you are old doesn't mean you are honest) but they may not be aware of their deteriorating health. (I am repeating myself now)

Do you think (for eg) your own eyes can still see as well as they could 40 years ago?....well unless you are a walking miracle they cannot.

You seem to be taking this personally.....even throwing in the fact that your reflexes(at 61) were better than 99% of others who took the test.

I am older than you, I would not feel in the slightest put out if a law came in that forced me to retake a test....I would willingly do it and IF I was deemed unsafe to drive I would make alternative arrangements.

Cars are lethal weapons....I would rather be safe than sorry.

A tragic accident is not the same as dangerous driving, and we don't know if it was a "tragic accident".

Syl wrote:Blimey.....and breathe.

I am not saying the elderly would lie and keep quiet about deteriorating health (though some might....just cos you are old doesn't mean you are honest)  but they may not be aware of their deteriorating health. (I am repeating myself now)

Do you think (for eg)  your own eyes can still see as well as they could 40 years ago?....well unless you are a walking miracle they cannot.

You seem to be taking this personally.....even throwing in the fact that your reflexes(at 61) were better than 99% of others who took the test.

I am older than you, I would not feel in the slightest put out if a law came in that forced me to retake a test....I would willingly do it and IF I was deemed unsafe to drive I would make alternative arrangements.

Cars are lethal weapons....I would rather be safe than sorry.  

I think someone would know if they couldn't see road signs properly, or if things looked out of focus.

Raggamuffin wrote:A tragic accident is not the same as dangerous driving, and we don't know if it was a "tragic accident".

Well she has not been arrested Rags, which would be the case if they suspected her of dangerous driving,

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Blimey.....and breathe.

I am not saying the elderly would lie and keep quiet about deteriorating health (though some might....just cos you are old doesn't mean you are honest)  but they may not be aware of their deteriorating health. (I am repeating myself now)

Do you think (for eg)  your own eyes can still see as well as they could 40 years ago?....well unless you are a walking miracle they cannot.

You seem to be taking this personally.....even throwing in the fact that your reflexes(at 61) were better than 99% of others who took the test.

I am older than you, I would not feel in the slightest put out if a law came in that forced me to retake a test....I would willingly do it and IF I was deemed unsafe to drive I would make alternative arrangements.

Cars are lethal weapons....I would rather be safe than sorry.  

I think someone would know if they couldn't see road signs properly, or if things looked out of focus.

Hmmmm....not always.
I think 2 types of drivers are easy to spot on the roads (even from behind) tear-arses (usually young) and old doddery drivers.