The BBC Breakfast programme has been discussing elderly drivers (no link, unfortunately). The usual stuff came out of the discussion; older drivers have slower reactions, failing eyesight and get confused over the controls.
Yes, sure, our reactions do slow down as we grow older. And, yes, if you passed a test fifty years ago, road situations have changed. What never fails to surprise me is the tired clichés that are trotted out as a solution.
In some cases, elderly drivers may have to relinquish their licence due to failing faculties. There is an argument for regular health checks for drivers irrespective of age. I have my eyes tested on a regular basis, but beyond that I am unaware if I have an underlying health problem that may affect my driving capability. Well, not strictly true, as recent visits to the doctor for minor ailments involved some basic medical checks, so everything is working pretty much as it should.
The usual mantra was regurgitated – drivers should be compulsory tested at seventy. Why seventy? Why not any other arbitrary age before that? I see plenty of bad driving and it doesn’t always involve graybeards. I see younger drivers behaving like arseholes on the roads. Why not subject them to a compulsory test?
There is an argument for ongoing re-testing throughout our driving careers and Quentin Wilson put it forward. However, I have qualms. One of those qualms is based upon my mistrust of the DSA. I have been through the DSA’s testing regime for driving instructors and one thing it taught me is that the DSA does not understand what competence is, let alone accurately measure it.
Emma Soames from Saga interviewed on the programme suggested refresher courses. Well, yes, but what if you don’t need a refresher course? Such an approach will be self-defeating. Better to have a system of ongoing assessment – by people who are not employed by the DSA. If government agencies must be involved, then only as an umbrella organisation to set standards to ensure consistency nationwide, not to deliver testing to candidates.
Assessment is not quite the same thing as testing, there are subtle differences – which is partly why I believe the DSA should have nothing to do with delivery of the service. It is not a pass or fail test. It is what it says, an assessment of someone’s performance against a standard. At the end of which, the candidate is given feedback on that performance. Either they managed to achieve the standard or they did not. The assessment will determine what refresher training is needed if any. It may be that all the candidate needs is some feedback from the assessor. However, any refresher courses will be based upon individual needs. We can all learn something – the last time my driving was assessed it was identified that my use of gears was outdated and that I could improve in this area – I was changing sequentially rather than block changing. Therefore a blanket refresher was not appropriate.
Any scheme should be about improving standards of driving, not a five year deadline where people lose their licenses if they don’t satisfy the examiner. Bear in mind here the trauma of the driving test that most drivers recall with horror. This should be a positive experience welcomed by drivers as a means to demonstrate and improve their skills, not something they dread. And, frankly, it should not be used to penalise drivers of a certain age.
I never understood why the driving test should be a trauma. Either you can drive or you can’t. Even less reason for it to be a trauma is that you barely have to be able to drive at all to pass the test. If it’s traumatic to be expected to drive a short distance and complete some basic manoeuvers in the presence of an examiner, you definitely shouldn’t be allowed to do on your own. Or at all.
As for retesting, given the vast number of people that despite having passed a test, can’t drive competently, what’s the point of them having another test?
Okay before I respond, let’s be clear that the driving test is pretty dreadful and does not accurately assess competence.
I had plenty of candidates who were competent drivers yet went to pieces during the test. Why? Who knows, I don’t. Despite me saying to them much the same as you have here, they still made stupid mistakes on the day. This does not mean that they were incapable of driving – I had seen them drive, so knew that they were capable. A test is, after all only a snapshot in time, not an accurate reflection of ongoing ability.
On the re-testing issue, I suspect that those who want it see it as a means of depriving people of their licenses. That said, my compromise would only be partially successful. To work, any retesting/assessing/refreshing has to be something entered into willingly with a desire to improve. Without that, it will fail.
“Despite me saying to them much the same as you have here, they still made stupid mistakes on the day. This does not mean that they were incapable of driving…”
Indeed. And good examiners will allow for that. I left the handbrake slightly ‘up’ enough to display the warning light after doing a turn in the road manouvre on my test, and when I noticed, pulled in, apologised and corrected it before continuing.
I expected to fail, but he passed me, because I hadn’t panicked and had dealt with it calmly.
Reassessment could be done by suitably approved driving instructors. It is how the DSA manage the CBT for learner motorcyclists so there is no reason why a annual/biannual/5/10/15 year assessment could not be managed in a similar way.
The problem is what to do with those that ‘fail’ the assessment. Ban them from driving even if they have had exemplary driving record? Make them take further training and allow them to continue? We’d just end up with lots of unlicensed drivers on the roads.
I’ve got a better suggestion. Compulsory 3rd party insurance. State managed (I can hear LR groaning already!) and displayed like a tax disk (perhaps even on the tax disk). If you fail your assessment your annual contributions to the insurance would be significantly higher. I’d make the ‘statutory’ insurance very basic third party cover (no personal injury claims and the like on it at all) but it would mean that no taxed vehicle is ever driven ‘uninsured’ and the owner would have a financial incentive to keep their driving standard up.
There would be a few checks and balances needed to the details to ensure there is not widespread fraud with one good driver ‘registering’ all their useless driving friends cars, but nothing is impossible.
Voyager – existing driving instructors is exactly what I was thinking of. As for displaying my insurance – I already do as all my vehicles are French registered and it is a requirement for French vehicles to display the certificate.
Actually, linking driving assessment to insurance would merely be an extension of what happens already. I get a discount on my bike cover for holding an AIM certificate. That kind of incentive might be a logical way forward.
If someone “fails” an assessment, it does not mean that they should lose their licence or become unlicensed. It would mean that some form of top-up training may be necessary before they could be signed off. The vast majority, I would suspect would be fine following some retraining. There would be a minority who perhaps shouldn’t be on the roads at all. What to do with them? Perhaps, yes, take their licence away. But any decent scheme would have that as a rarity not the norm.
Whatever, let’s just keep the state out of it, shall we?
All this re-training. Who pays? How much will it all cost? Will it all be worth it if “just one life is saved”?
When I took my test, my knees were actually knocking together with nerves for the first few minutes. For a lad of 17 it’s a monumental event – or was when I was that age. To fail would have been crushing.
The who pays is simple – the candidate. Same as currently is the case for any training provision in the private sector. If it was linked to reduced insurance premiums then it may well be an incentive for younger drivers to take further training once they have passed the test.
My measure of success would not be the old “one life saved” but an improvement across the board of driving standards. We should all be striving to improve our driving/riding standards. If we could travel on a motorway and overtake using a clear middle lane and saw other drivers moving left following an overtake, I’d look on that as a measure of success 😉
I recall my tests – bike and car. I failed the bike test first time around. I passed the car test first time around. I do recall how nervous I was. I was also nervous taking the AIM test and that was entirely voluntary.
I’m about to get back on a motorbike [already being on a pushbike] and I have to admit to a certain trepidation as to whether I could still ride it safely. It’s a bit both ways, this one.
Contact your local Police traffic section James. Some areas offer refresher training for those just back in the saddle – not official Police run courses, but local Police riders often volunteer as trainers.
I plan to take one myself when the old FJ gets back on the road.
LR, then how would you look upon drivers moving to the left after an overtake AND signalling their intention to do so? Or what about if they also signal there intention BEFORE pulling out to overtake?
Not having a go or anything, it’s just one of my biggest hates and I just had to get it off my chest.
Feeling better now…….
Yes, the local plod do provide some good bike training.
Drivers should indicate their intention to move out before overtaking. There is no need to signal left afterwards as moving left is what they are supposed to do, so the driver being overtaken should expect it, making an indication unnecessary.
Let’s face it, the driving force – ahem – is revenue raising.
If older drivers are such a hazard on the roads why do the insurance companies offer lower rate for over 50. If you believe the statistics the most dangerous drivers are under 25.
Longrider said:
Fair enough. Perhaps I was being a bit harsh in my original comment, especially since on my driving test, every time the examiner said to turn right at the next junction, I promptly indicated left, and vice versa, causing him to bellow “I said RIGHT!” Presumably I handled that well enough to pass, but maybe he just couldn’t face the prospect of having to sit another test with me.
Ben, today they are having a go at young drivers to create some balance, I guess 😉
Ciaran, the test is not a measure of navigation ability, so providing you went the wrong way correctly, there is no problem.