Over 70's could face limitations on where and when they can drive their cars.

Good idea or bad?
Many over 70's could have health conditions that would not interfere with their ability to drive.


"Drivers over the age of 70 who suffer from poor health could be allowed to retain their licences if they stick to roads in their local area.

New proposals being discussed by the DVLA and Driving Mobility would also see elderly motorists installing a tracker on their vehicle as part of a 'graduated driving licence' scheme.

The discussions come as data shows an increase in the number of drivers over the age of 70 on the road, doubling over the last 25 years, the Sunday Times reports.

Statistics also show that the number of deaths on the road involving motorists in this age group also rose from 95 in 2010 to 145 in 2020.

The new 'graduated driving licences' would see elderly drivers, suffering with health problems, restricted to an area of just 20 or 30 miles from their home and could see a night time ban enforced."






https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/over-70s-in-poor-health-face-night-driving-ban-in-licence-shake-up/ar-BB1f36iA?ocid=msedgdhp

It feels like it's wandering into Big Brother territory to me.

I do think it's wise for over 70's...maybe 75 plus drivers to get clearance from their Dr;s and opticians,, that would be sensible whether they have existing health conditions or not.

But many 70 plus drivers are of sound mind, sight, etc, many illnesses that may come with old age dont affect the ability to drive at all.

Limiting where they can go and when seems daft to me. If they are not fit to drive they shouldn't be driving at all....locally or not.

It's not just over-70's. I just experienced something similar with a friend who is in his 50's. He has a pacemaker. He was driving with his father (90's) and gf (40's) to a restaurant on the coast, when his batteries failed. He drove off a cliff, and the accident broke the backs of both father and gf.

All survived, but father is in long-term care permanently, and gf walks by slowly "selecting" her steps, like where to place her foot is a momentous decision. So sad.

opticians Already have a legal duty to report people with unfit eyesight to the DVLA and that's is also true for doctors for certain medical conditions like epilepsie for example a friend of mine had his licence suspended because of that ,he had to be seizure free for a year before he could reapply

Original Quill wrote:It's not just over-70's.  I just experienced something similar with a friend who is in his 50's.  He has a pacemaker.  He was driving with his father (90's) and gf (40's) to a restaurant on the coast, when his batteries failed.  He drove off a cliff, and the accident broke the backs of both father and gf.

All survived, but father is in long-term care permanently, and gf walks by slowly "selecting" her steps, like where to place her foot is a momentous decision.  So sad.

Sudden attacks can happen to anyone no matter what their age.
My friend was 41, no known medical problems, she collapsed and died of a brain tumour, one moment there, the next gone, thank God she wasn't driving at the time.

Bad.

Korben wrote:opticians Already have a legal duty to report people with unfit eyesight to the DVLA and that's is also true for doctors for certain medical conditions like epilepsie for example a friend of mine had his licence suspended because of that ,he had to be seizure free for a year before he could reapply

I think one problem can be that some elderly people don't go to the dr's or opticians for regular check ups. They may not be aware, or refuse to admit that their sight, hearing, health is making them a risk to drive.
When they reach 70 they just reapply to have the licence renewed, they don't need any test, and I think they then have to reapply every 3 years thereafter.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's not just over-70's.  I just experienced something similar with a friend who is in his 50's.  He has a pacemaker.  He was driving with his father (90's) and gf (40's) to a restaurant on the coast, when his batteries failed.  He drove off a cliff, and the accident broke the backs of both father and gf.

All survived, but father is in long-term care permanently, and gf walks by slowly "selecting" her steps, like where to place her foot is a momentous decision.  So sad.

Sudden attacks can happen to anyone no matter what their age.
My friend was 41, no known medical problems, she collapsed and died of a brain tumour, one moment there, the next gone, thank God she wasn't driving at the time.

Nah...far as I can see this guy was negligent, and didn't change his batteries to his pacemaker when due. It wasn't happenstance; it was procrastination.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to limit driving privileges on assumptions about age, you're better off if you dig further and monitor medical conditions of everyone. I like Korben's comments about opticians reporting cases of unfit eyesight. That's the way to go.

Syl wrote:

Korben wrote:opticians Already have a legal duty to report people with unfit eyesight to the DVLA and that's is also true for doctors for certain medical conditions like epilepsie for example a friend of mine had his licence suspended because of that ,he had to be seizure free for a year before he could reapply

I think one problem can be that some elderly people don't go to the dr's or opticians for regular check ups. They may not be aware, or refuse to admit that their sight, hearing, health is making them a risk to drive.
When they reach 70 they just reapply to have the licence renewed, they don't need any test, and I think they then have to reapply every 3 years thereafter.

In California, the Department of Motor Vehicles requires an eye test every time you apply for renewal, which is every four years regardless of age.  It's administered by the agents themselves, and isn't dependent upon someone saying they can see fine.  They have to prove it.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think one problem can be that some elderly people don't go to the dr's or opticians for regular check ups. They may not be aware, or refuse to admit that their sight, hearing, health is making them a risk to drive.
When they reach 70 they just reapply to have the licence renewed, they don't need any test, and I think they then have to reapply every 3 years thereafter.

In California, the Department of Motor Vehicles requires an eye test every time you apply for renewal, which is every four years regardless of age.  It's administered by the agents themselves, and isn't dependent upon someone saying they can see fine.  They have to prove it.

That makes sense, I also think medical check ups should be compulsory after a certain age.

I think limiting where drivers can go and only allowing them to drive in the daytime is a ridiculous idea.
Either you are fit to drive or you are not.

Syl wrote:

Korben wrote:opticians Already have a legal duty to report people with unfit eyesight to the DVLA and that's is also true for doctors for certain medical conditions like epilepsie for example a friend of mine had his licence suspended because of that ,he had to be seizure free for a year before he could reapply

I think one problem can be that some elderly people don't go to the dr's or opticians for regular check ups. They may not be aware, or refuse to admit that their sight, hearing, health is making them a risk to drive.
When they reach 70 they just reapply to have the licence renewed, they don't need any test, and I think they then have to reapply every 3 years thereafter.

Yup, it's just like when you take rights away from those that seek mental health help. They choose not to go to the doctor instead.

Besides, driving requires more than good vision. My mom had very good vision late in life, but she started losing the ability to drive. It's motor skills and processing information from a lot of moving parts around you, not just "seeing" them.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think one problem can be that some elderly people don't go to the dr's or opticians for regular check ups. They may not be aware, or refuse to admit that their sight, hearing, health is making them a risk to drive.
When they reach 70 they just reapply to have the licence renewed, they don't need any test, and I think they then have to reapply every 3 years thereafter.

Yup, it's just like when you take rights away from those that seek mental health help. They choose not to go to the doctor instead.

Besides, driving requires more than good vision. My mom had very good vision late in life, but she started losing the ability to drive. It's motor skills and processing information from a lot of moving parts around you, not just "seeing" them.    

I remember you saying something about your mum not realising that she shouldn't be driving anymore.

It's a problem, take away someones car and they can feel like their independence is being taken away.

That's why I feel it would be better for older people to have regular  compulsary health checks before their license is renewed.
That way to drive or not is taken out of their hands and the familys hands.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yup, it's just like when you take rights away from those that seek mental health help. They choose not to go to the doctor instead.

Besides, driving requires more than good vision. My mom had very good vision late in life, but she started losing the ability to drive. It's motor skills and processing information from a lot of moving parts around you, not just "seeing" them.    

I remember you saying something about your mum not realising that she shouldn't be driving anymore.

It's a problem, take away someones car and they can feel like their independence is being taken away.

That's why I feel it would be better for older people to have regular  compulsary health checks before their license is renewed.
That way to drive or not is taken out of their hands and the familys hands.

Why do you focus on elders? There are thousands of disabilities.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
I remember you saying something about your mum not realising that she shouldn't be driving anymore.

It's a problem, take away someones car and they can feel like their independence is being taken away.

That's why I feel it would be better for older people to have regular  compulsary health checks before their license is renewed.
That way to drive or not is taken out of their hands and the familys hands.

Why do you focus on elders?  There are thousands of disabilities.

It's the DVLA that is singling out the elders Quill.

I am not sure if younger people with disabilities have to renew their license every 3 years, presently the over 70's in the UK have to.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why do you focus on elders?  There are thousands of disabilities.

It's the DVLA that is singling out the elders Quill.

I am not sure if younger people with disabilities have to renew their license every 3 years, presently the over 70's in the UK have to.

I think use of age is the wrong secondary signal for fitness to drive. There are more direct means of getting at dangerous (by disability) drivers.

Driving is a privilege...a requirement that one's primary physician certifies the ability of a citizen to drive, will do. Then, the physician can be sued.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
It's the DVLA that is singling out the elders Quill.

I am not sure if younger people with disabilities have to renew their license every 3 years, presently the over 70's in the UK have to.

I think use of age is the wrong secondary signal for fitness to drive.  There are more direct means of getting at dangerous (by disability) drivers.

Driving is a privilege...a requirement that one's primary physician certifies the ability of a citizen to drive, will do.  Then, the physician can be sued.  

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
It's the DVLA that is singling out the elders Quill.

I am not sure if younger people with disabilities have to renew their license every 3 years, presently the over 70's in the UK have to.

I think use of age is the wrong secondary signal for fitness to drive.  There are more direct means of getting at dangerous (by disability) drivers.

Driving is a privilege...a requirement that one's primary physician certifies the ability of a citizen to drive, will do.  Then, the physician can be sued.  

Yes, but old age isn't a disability in itself, is it?
It's a gradual process, and not every older person who is now unfit to drive realises that.

Many times a Dr isn't even involved. A person just renews their own licence without being checked.

It's ridiculous and will practically imprison anyone over 70 from visiting people who live over 30 miles away and from going on holiday in this country. The amount of deaths on the road caused by youngsters driving too fast outstrips anyone over 70. Of course the figures are up because so many are now living longer.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think use of age is the wrong secondary signal for fitness to drive.  There are more direct means of getting at dangerous (by disability) drivers.

Driving is a privilege...a requirement that one's primary physician certifies the ability of a citizen to drive, will do.  Then, the physician can be sued.  

Yes, but old age isn't a disability in itself, is it?
It's a gradual process, and not every older person who is now unfit to drive realises that.

Many times a Dr isn't  even involved. A person just renews their own licence without being checked.

I think this is part of a human tendency to take the agency away from older people.  You think racism and sexism is bad?  Blacks and women can talk back!    It's personal for me because I watched my mother go through it...and I was a part of it.  Here was this stunning mind, and people all around not even acknowledging that mind.  She was an organism that gets four pills in the morning, and a bath in the evening, that’s all.  The rest is: I can’t be bothered…I’ve got important people to be with!  Ageism dismisses a person's right to be a person.

When you dismiss a person's agency, you take away their legitimacy as a person.  And look, we warehouse the aged in what amounts to Zoo's, called senior homes, and we visit them 4-times a year to throw peanuts at them, interact, and see if they respond.   I don't doubt that with age comes a certain amount of atrophy, but to condemn the personhood of a whole class of people, when health should be an individual question, is just a form of mass execution in my mind.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


Yes, but old age isn't a disability in itself, is it?
It's a gradual process, and not every older person who is now unfit to drive realises that.

Many times a Dr isn't  even involved. A person just renews their own licence without being checked.

I think this is part of a human tendency to take the agency away from older people.  You think racism and sexism is bad?  Blacks and women can talk back!    It's personal for me because I watched my mother go through it...and I was a part of it.  Here was this stunning mind, and people all around not even acknowledging that mind.  She was an organism that gets four pills in the morning, and a bath in the evening, that’s all.  The rest is: I can’t be bothered…I’ve got important people to be with!  Ageism dismisses a person's right to be a person.

When you dismiss a person's agency, you take away their legitimacy as a person.  And look, we warehouse the aged in what amounts to Zoo's, called senior homes, and we visit them 4-times a year to throw peanuts at them, interact, and see if they respond.   I don't doubt that with age comes a certain amount of atrophy, but to condemn the personhood of a whole class of people, when health should be an individual question, is just a form of mass execution in my mind.

It does seem to be, that in the most so called 'advanced' countries, the elderly are treated the worse.
My mum was in a care home at the end of her life, not because we wanted her out of the way, but because she needed 24 hour specialist care I couldn't provide, we visited her every day she was there.

There were some people in that home that never had any visitors, it was like you say, get them out of the way and forget about them.
When my mum died, she had some lovely clothes she hadn't had the chance to wear because she had been bed ridden for a while. I asked the carers if they would be useful to any of the residents, they were because I was told some of the ladies had never had a visitor since being admitted.

HoratioTarr wrote:It's ridiculous and will practically imprison anyone over 70 from visiting people who live over 30 miles away and from going on holiday in this country.   The amount of deaths on the road caused by youngsters driving too fast outstrips anyone over 70.    Of course the figures are up because so many are now living longer.  

It makes no sense.
If people are not fit to drive they are not fit to drive....be in locally or not, whatever their age.
Many over 70's are brilliant drivers. Some of the Black cabs in Manchester have full time over 70 drivers, they are a damn sight safer than any 20 year old.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


Yes, but old age isn't a disability in itself, is it?
It's a gradual process, and not every older person who is now unfit to drive realises that.

Many times a Dr isn't  even involved. A person just renews their own licence without being checked.

I think this is part of a human tendency to take the agency away from older people.  You think racism and sexism is bad?  Blacks and women can talk back!    It's personal for me because I watched my mother go through it...and I was a part of it.  Here was this stunning mind, and people all around not even acknowledging that mind.  She was an organism that gets four pills in the morning, and a bath in the evening, that’s all.  The rest is: I can’t be bothered…I’ve got important people to be with!  Ageism dismisses a person's right to be a person.

When you dismiss a person's agency, you take away their legitimacy as a person.  And look, we warehouse the aged in what amounts to Zoo's, called senior homes, and we visit them 4-times a year to throw peanuts at them, interact, and see if they respond.   I don't doubt that with age comes a certain amount of atrophy, but to condemn the personhood of a whole class of people, when health should be an individual question, is just a form of mass execution in my mind.

If you see your parent 4 times a year that's on you.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think this is part of a human tendency to take the agency away from older people.  You think racism and sexism is bad?  Blacks and women can talk back!    It's personal for me because I watched my mother go through it...and I was a part of it.  Here was this stunning mind, and people all around not even acknowledging that mind.  She was an organism that gets four pills in the morning, and a bath in the evening, that’s all.  The rest is: I can’t be bothered…I’ve got important people to be with!  Ageism dismisses a person's right to be a person.

When you dismiss a person's agency, you take away their legitimacy as a person.  And look, we warehouse the aged in what amounts to Zoo's, called senior homes, and we visit them 4-times a year to throw peanuts at them, interact, and see if they respond.   I don't doubt that with age comes a certain amount of atrophy, but to condemn the personhood of a whole class of people, when health should be an individual question, is just a form of mass execution in my mind.

If you see your parent 4 times a year that's on you.  

I know you take care of your mother, and I understand your concern MD.  My sister and I took my mother out to lunch, to a fine restaurant, every Thursday.  We varied the places and experiences to make it interesting for her...but methodically, we were always there.  On the weekends we would take her to the beach, or walk among the redwoods...we made it a game to think up interesting and stimulating trips that she would enjoy.

Being so close to her was one of the things that exposed me to the issue of treatment of the elderly.  I looked around and saw so, so many who were neglected...as I say, warehoused.  As a Constitutional lawyer, I began to take a closer look at the treatment of the elderly.  The main thing is their loss of agency.  People condescend them.  They patronize them.  They refuse to speak to them, addressing rather the younger person with them.

Legally, they put them in custodial commitments, and then forget about them.  And, then, no one is looking after their legal affairs...hardly even paying their bills.  On another thread I was lamenting the abandonment of a little child by her mother.  Yet, here we have seniors abandoned every day.  Imagine how they feel.

Syl wrote:It feels like it's wandering into Big Brother territory to me.

I do think it's wise for over 70's...maybe 75 plus drivers to get clearance from their Dr;s and opticians,, that would be sensible whether they have existing health conditions or not.

But many 70 plus drivers are of sound mind, sight, etc, many illnesses that may come with old age dont affect the ability to drive at all.

Limiting where they can go and when seems daft to me. If they are not fit to drive they shouldn't be driving at all....locally or not.

What about racing teens and youngsters who drive like maniacs because they go their first car? *They’re just as bad (if not worse) than the elderly. Aren’t they?

Edit: *some of them, not all.

Makes more sense to me that everyone should be required to re-take their driving test every so often. Perhaps every 10 years until the age of 65, then every 5, every 3, etc.

Of course, this is just a problem until driver's licenses become obsolete anyway ...

Ben Reilly wrote:Makes more sense to me that everyone should be required to re-take their driving test every so often. Perhaps every 10 years until the age of 65, then every 5, every 3, etc.

Or, in keeping with what eds said, begin with every 3 years, then every 5, before moving to every 10 years. Then, when someone reaches the age of 65, begin to again shorten the periods between tests.

If age is to be used as a measure of competency, let's be fair about it.