Conclusive evidence why old people shouldn't drive...

[whitevanman88]

...in my eyes anyway. Before people get on their high-horse about this, I don't mean people who are elderly and still capable of driving well. I'm talking about those who believe they have every right, because they're older that you, can't see over the steering wheel, and seem to have no rev control when parking.

We have a certain older person in our village who has exactly this mentality. Her M reg Rover Metro can usually be found parked at acute angles to the curb, or causing a major holdup somewhere. Well I've just witnessed her best bit of driving yet.

We have a sliproad that comes down from the A63 into the village, with traffic lights at the end. It's hard to describe, so here's a map so you can see it...



I was approaching the juntion from the road with the red line on, the biddy was approaching from the road with the blue line, and coming down the sliproad (brown line) was two marked police cars, with blues & sirens on.

The junction has traffic lights on it, mine were green as were the ones that the biddy was approaching. I saw (and heard) the police cars, so despite my light being green, I hung back and waited for them to clear the junction. The police were wanting to go up the road to the roundabout (the blue one) so would have to cross the "biddys" path.

She MUST have heard the police cars, but despite this she goes through the green light without giving way to them, creating a near miss for the police scooby. The police car sounded another horn at her, having to brake hard and maneuver around her (dawdling along at 10mph or so...).

if that wasn't bad enough, she gesticulates to the police car, in ways I didn't think old people knew about.

I mean c'mon, she nearly caused an accident (and FTR the cop car wasn't going that fast. He could see I was holding back and it looked like the biddy was too, as she was hardly moving. he probably approached the junction at around 25-30mph).

The guy driving the 330d cop car behind did have a grin on his face after it had happened, and I got a wave of appreciation, which was rather nice.

Edited by whitevanman88 on Thursday 16th April 20:55

Edited by whitevanman88 on Thursday 16th April 20:55

Edited by whitevanman88 on Thursday 16th April 20:56

[smart51]

It seems that the biddy had right of way and whilst it is a courtesy [that I always provide] I don't think you have to give way. The Police should make sure it is safe to cross red lights and things when they do so.

It is probably a case of arrogance from the biddy not giving way but I can't see that she did something that clearly invalidates her from driving. There are some people on the road who should be stopped though. For that reason, I think a retest every 10 years is a good thing.

[whitevanman88]

The point I'm making is that she didn't even bother with a shoulder check... Something I always do at that junction (and most other motorists) as the design of the junction leaves quite a lot to be desired. She was also trundling onto the junction at <10mph, when it is an indicated 40 limit (ok, so maybe not 40 across the junction, but a bit faster would have made her intentions clearer). I'm sure the coppers (& myself) thought she was holding back for them, it certainly appeared that way until she just trundled through the traffic light, out RIGHT in front of a copper.

Seems to me that she wasn't driving with due care & attention. Certainly not taking notice of what other road users were doing around her.

[R3v 1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm sorry but if she is unable to do a shoulder check because of a physical disability then she should not be driving.

A shoulder check is abolutely essential part of driving and if you are unable to do it then you should not be on the road.

Driving is not a given right, you need to make sure you are physically/mentally fit enough to make sure you cannot pose a danger to yourself or others.

[micky g]

I try to extend every courtesy to older drivers. It's polite.

[whitevanman88]

Isaac Hunt : There is a great deal of difference between being deaf & not doing / being able to do a shoulder check. Even if she had checked her door mirror (supposing it was positioned correctly) she would have seen the police vehicles approaching. I do not believe anyone who can not complete a shoulder check should be on the roads - it's a fundamental part of safe driving.

I also extend every courtesy to other road users, not dependent on their age. But it strikes me that this particular motorist is not capable of driving safely nor competently.

[vonhosen]

It's up to the Police to treat the red light as a give way & ensure it is safe for them to enter before they do.

As an aside her age has nothing to do with it. It is irrelevant in any assessment of driving ability, any deficit in her driving she might suffer from, people of any age could also suffer from.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th April 10:40

[whitevanman88]

vonhosen : As I explained, it looked as if she was waiting for the police car to clear the junction as she was travelling so slowly. The police had already entered the junction before she proceeded through the green light.

While I agree that ailments or attitudes of this nature can occur in all ages, it is frightening how such a high % around here seem to be older drivers...especially when it comes to general observation while driving.

[vonhosen]

whitevanman88 said:

vonhosen : As I explained, it looked as if she was waiting for the police car to clear the junction as she was travelling so slowly. The police had already entered the junction before she proceeded through the green light.

While I agree that ailments or attitudes of this nature can occur in all ages, it is frightening how such a high % around here seem to be older drivers...especially when it comes to general observation while driving.

She has right of way, as I said it's up to the place to 'ensure' it is safe to proceed against the red light. If for whatever reason they collide, it will be the Police driver at fault.

[whitevanman88]

Maybe technically so, but surely driving of such a low standard is a hazard in itself?

And would she really have right of way, taking into account that the first police car was had already entered onto the junction by the time she approached it?

Edited by whitevanman88 on Saturday 18th April 12:15

[Martin A]

Hi All

There's much more conclusive evidence as to why young people shouldn't drive.

Doubt if this helps

Best regards

Martin A

[whitevanman88]

Martin A said:

Hi All

There's much more conclusive evidence as to why young people shouldn't drive.

Doubt if this helps

Best regards

Martin A

Or maybe it's evidence as to why we should employ a mandatory driver training scheme like Finland? As a young driver I would welcome that. Maybe kill 2 stones with one bird, that.

[R3v 1]

Martin A said:

Hi All

There's much more conclusive evidence as to why young people shouldn't drive.

Doubt if this helps

Best regards

Martin A

Agreed. Young drivers can be just as dangerous if not more so than elderly drivers. They take risks and don't know what to do if things get pear shaped (General sweeping statement!)

However better driver training is absolutely essential in this country. If the government was serious about reducing road casulties they would implement better training and testing to young/new drivers instead of lower limits and many more scameras.

I'd even support re-testing every say 10 years for every driver if it ment reduction in cameras and scraping all this speed limit changes. However this is too common sence thinking for the government and doubt would raise as much revenue for them.

[MarkwG]

Better training from now on is fine, & an idea I support: but what about all those who have already passed? A poor driver's a poor driver, whatever age they are; they just tend to have/cause different types of accident...

[vonhosen]

R3v 1 said:

Martin A said:

Hi All

There's much more conclusive evidence as to why young people shouldn't drive.

Doubt if this helps

Best regards

Martin A

Agreed. Young drivers can be just as dangerous if not more so than elderly drivers. They take risks and don't know what to do if things get pear shaped (General sweeping statement!)

However better driver training is absolutely essential in this country. If the government was serious about reducing road casulties they would implement better training and testing to young/new drivers instead of lower limits and many more scameras.

I'd even support re-testing every say 10 years for every driver if it ment reduction in cameras and scraping all this speed limit changes. However this is too common sence thinking for the government and doubt would raise as much revenue for them.

The DSA are going through changes.

I personally think the majority of drivers would prefer the speed limits & cameras, rather than compulsory re-tests & as a result the government won't go there (that's without the logistical nightmare re-testing 30 million existing drivers in addition to all new drivers would cause).

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th April 23:13

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

I personally think the majority of drivers would prefer the speed limits & cameras, rather than compulsory re-tests & as a result the government won't go there

Do you really believe speed limits and cameras are a substitute for better driving standards? If so, why not give away licences without even the basic DSA test?

[R3v 1]

vonhosen said:

R3v 1 said:

Martin A said:

Hi All

There's much more conclusive evidence as to why young people shouldn't drive.

Doubt if this helps

Best regards

Martin A

Agreed. Young drivers can be just as dangerous if not more so than elderly drivers. They take risks and don't know what to do if things get pear shaped (General sweeping statement!)

However better driver training is absolutely essential in this country. If the government was serious about reducing road casulties they would implement better training and testing to young/new drivers instead of lower limits and many more scameras.

I'd even support re-testing every say 10 years for every driver if it ment reduction in cameras and scraping all this speed limit changes. However this is too common sence thinking for the government and doubt would raise as much revenue for them.

The DSA are going through changes.

I personally think the majority of drivers would prefer the speed limits & cameras, rather than compulsory re-tests & as a result the government won't go there (that's without the logistical nightmare re-testing 30 million existing drivers in addition to all new drivers would cause).

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th April 23:13

The DSA need radical changes to the way they train new drivers and also the testing standard. I look back (Only 6 years) when I took my test and they passed me. I knew nothing. I was not safe enough to drive on a motorway or country lanes. The only thing my test taught me was town driving.

I learnt these things myself through practicing on the above mentioned roads. Luckly I'm not one of these idiots who insist of flying down narrow country roads at XXXMPH so I had no accidents and injured no one. It still should not have happened though. I should have been prepared and trained to drive properly before been allowed my license. At 17/18 though you do not see that.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

I personally think the majority of drivers would prefer the speed limits & cameras, rather than compulsory re-tests & as a result the government won't go there

Do you really believe speed limits and cameras are a substitute for better driving standards? If so, why not give away licences without even the basic DSA test?

No I don't & I guess the government know that too, but you can only introduce what you can get away with.
They got away with speed limits & cameras, I guess they don't think they can get away with compulsory re-tests. The reason being that Joe public is worried they would have to pay a lot of money for lessons in order to ensure they can keep their licence (even then there's no guarantee), whilst they only have to pay when they get caught with offending & for most of them that happens once in a blue moon if at all.

I personally think it's both how the government believe the public would re-act to compulsory re-tests & the logistical nightmare combined with the enormous investment required to test 30+ million drivers regularly that stops it.

It's far easier for them through CPC schemes plus health & safety concerns, to exert pressure on employers to provide training for the employees, who after all have to drive for work, are at the greatest risk & who do the highest mileage.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th April 16:27

[vonhosen]

R3v 1 said:

vonhosen said:

R3v 1 said:

Martin A said:

Hi All

There's much more conclusive evidence as to why young people shouldn't drive.

Doubt if this helps

Best regards

Martin A

Agreed. Young drivers can be just as dangerous if not more so than elderly drivers. They take risks and don't know what to do if things get pear shaped (General sweeping statement!)

However better driver training is absolutely essential in this country. If the government was serious about reducing road casulties they would implement better training and testing to young/new drivers instead of lower limits and many more scameras.

I'd even support re-testing every say 10 years for every driver if it ment reduction in cameras and scraping all this speed limit changes. However this is too common sence thinking for the government and doubt would raise as much revenue for them.

The DSA are going through changes.

I personally think the majority of drivers would prefer the speed limits & cameras, rather than compulsory re-tests & as a result the government won't go there (that's without the logistical nightmare re-testing 30 million existing drivers in addition to all new drivers would cause).

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 18th April 23:13

The DSA need radical changes to the way they train new drivers and also the testing standard. I look back (Only 6 years) when I took my test and they passed me. I knew nothing. I was not safe enough to drive on a motorway or country lanes. The only thing my test taught me was town driving.

I learnt these things myself through practicing on the above mentioned roads. Luckly I'm not one of these idiots who insist of flying down narrow country roads at XXXMPH so I had no accidents and injured no one. It still should not have happened though. I should have been prepared and trained to drive properly before been allowed my license. At 17/18 though you do not see that.

As I said, the DSA (& it's not just them, it's all of the EU) are going through a process of evaluating & introducing new systems & tests.

[R3v 1]

Vanhosen,

Sorry for being Nosey but do you know what these new Tests and Assesments involve?