Via Tim, this rather disturbing story:
An upper age limit for drivers could be imposed under plans being considered by the Government.
Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Transport, is to review the existing rules following calls for restrictions on very elderly drivers.
WTF!?! One minute we are being told that it is young drivers who are dangerous, now it’s the old gits.
She will launch a public consultation on the issue, and is understood to favour a tightening of the law if the move has sufficient public support. The Commons Transport Select Committee last week called for the minimum age for holding a full driving licence to be raised from 17 to 18.
Public support does not necessarily make it right. There is anecdotal evidence that some older drivers lose their faculties and therefore become become involved in an accident before they realise that they are a menace. Others realise before it comes to that and stop driving. On the other side of that coin is their wealth of experience. My mother-in-law, for example, is still managing to pilot her Saab about perfectly safely (and at a higher speed that I am usually comfortable with) and she is now in her eighties. My father, a septuagenarian, still drives a car and rides a motorcycle perfectly safely. Are they to be denied their means of transport merely because they have reached a certain age? Are we finally entering the world of Logan’s Run whereby life is curtailed on the basis of nothing more than an arbitrary age limit?
Under current rules there is no upper age limit for motorists, although over-70s must pass a medical check every three years in order to keep their licence.
That is a perfectly reasonable compromise. I hope, should it come to it, that I have the courage to surrender my driving licence if I become infirm to the point where I am likely to be dangerous. But, that should be my decision – along with medical advice – based upon my ability to continue driving; not some arbitrary government set age limit.
There are 1.5 million drivers over the age of 75 in Britain, including almost 35,000 aged over 90. While older people are known generally for their caution on the road, figures show that almost 11,000 car accidents last year involved drivers in the 70-plus bracket.
As Tim points out, what do those figures mean? Taking them at face value, I make that around 0.7% of those drivers have been involved in an accident. So, because the older generation have an accident rate of 0.7% per annum, they are to be legislated off the roads. It doesn’t look good for the under 25s now, does it? Also, involved in an accident does not mean the same thing as caused an accident. Given a balance of probabilities, a proportion of that 0.7% were caused by someone else.
William Armstrong, a coroner in Norwich, said he backed the plans. This month he presided over the inquest of George Pyman, 92, a motorist with one eye who died after pulling into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Under current licensing arrangements, having sight in only one eye is not regarded as a disability, so is therefore irrelevant. As a motorcyclist, I am aware that plenty of drivers of all age groups make this error. It is not especially uncommon. William Armstrong is a fool. One accident does not make a case for legislation.
“Imposing an upper limit is something that should be considered as a road safety measure,” He said. “I fully accept that there are… civil liberty issues. But there are also road safety issues.”
Of course it is a civil liberties issue. These totalitarian monsters are talking about denying someone a driving licence on the basis of anecdote and an arbitrary upper age limit – despite their own figures demonstrating that less than 1% of these drivers are involved in an accident. As for the road safety issue, the matter of holding a driving licence should be one of competence and medical fitness, not age.
What is it with these people and their two-dimensional thinking? If they had proposed a programme of continuous assessment (carried out in the private sector) and development of drivers throughout their driving career, they might just be onto something; but, no, they opt for the populist and simplistic approach and penalise a law abiding minority.
Still, it makes a good headline.
Part of the reason for going for fixed ages insteadof ability is that it makes it much easier for these people.
No longer will they have arguments and appeals and have to justify their decisions. It will be automatic.
It also reduced the number on the roads and this lot can’t appeal on the grounds that they need it for work. So they don’t contribute to the treasury.
Once an upper limit is in it won’t be long before it is adjusted and we all know that only means one thing. It’ll also be said to help meet CO2 reduction targets.
Only thing is that if they were so bad would they get insurance. Insurance companies seem to like them.
It’s simply another reduction in freedomon a defenceless area of society. The salami tactics goon. Soon you won’t be able to get a license until you have a justification signed by a government official.
BTW don’t you think that people over 70 are too old to vote? After all, they probably vote Conservative and how dangerous is that?
Actually, pensions these days get taxed – my father still contributes his pound of flesh and he’s not a wealthy man by any means, the same goes for my mother-in-law. As for not working, I thought HMG was expecting us to work ourselves to our graves now that there is a black hole in the pensions budget?
The reason insurance companies like older drivers is because they are statistically less likely to be involved in an accident. It’s all about the bottom line for them, which means that their decisions will be that much more rational. As I’ve grown older I’ve watched my premiums drop by over three quarters.
But, yes, the control freak is never satisfied. Every little bite at our liberties leaves them hungry for more.