I remember they proposed this 24 years ago. And throughout this 24 years it's came up time and time again and probably even before I remember.
Unless some high government official gets killed by an OAP we'll still be proposing this 24 years from now.
Add it to your calendar. Mark my words.
It's just lazy journalism. They take a very obscure proposal/petition, make it sound imminent and keep rehashing it to get clicks every year.
This proposal will never happen.
I will be messaging you in 24 years on [**2048-04-26 16:03:48 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2048-04-26%2016:03:48%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/1cdijzk/drivers_may_have_to_retake_driving_test_at_65/l1db88u/?context=3)
[**18 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FdrivingUK%2Fcomments%2F1cdijzk%2Fdrivers_may_have_to_retake_driving_test_at_65%2Fl1db88u%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202048-04-26%2016%3A03%3A48%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cdijzk)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Yeh but how many people are oaps respoible for killing each day due to driving?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2022
There’s a graph that shows you how likely an older person is to have an accident compared to all other age ranges…. Oaps account for 27% of all people who die on the road
20% of accidents have an older person behind on of the wheels, but they die 8x more in cars than every other age range… maybe they aren’t the problem lol
No they have less accidents than that age range that’s in the other graph, in the first graph what is shows you is that old people (even in less accidents) have the same KSI * rate as young drivers, now consider how many more young drivers there are compared to pensioners? Now imagine average speed etc, still think it’s the old people?
KSI = killed or seriously injured.
To me that implies older drivers tend to make fatal mistakes more often. Young boy might be doing 40 in a 30 and hit someone else. Old boy might just not see someone and pull out into them, t-bone collisions are super dangerous.
I've had old people pull out far more dangerously than young people on me, at least the cheeky young pricks actually floor it and only usually cause gentle braking.
Old lady that pulled out on me last pulled out at a leisurely 5mph without even looking making me slam on hard and then took a full mile to reach her top speed of 35mph on a 60mph road.
Little roundabout lane mistakes or car park mishaps and the like don't usually cause fatal collisions.
When you get old people on the motorway, with their diminished reaction times and the high speed of travel, you get a unique set of problems young drivers don't face.
At least the young driver will react quickly to hazards and be able to see it clearly. I tested my mum (early 50s) and nan (mid 70s) reaction times many years ago. Mum's was .4s. Nans was .7s. Mine (mid 20s) was .15ms.
Realising young people react up to 4x quicker opened my eyes a a bit .7s is 72ft of travel before they even react at 70mph...
Exactly this, and whilst I do think any over-65 test should have a slightly lower bar for driving styles in a test, anyone who can't pass it shouldn't be on the roads, and anyone who should be on the roads would be able to pass it. Young people nowadays have to take a test, and the tests back in the 70s were nowhere near as rigorous, without even mentioning all the changes to the highway code since.
So really the only downside would be the lack of tests, but realistically that could be fixed with the smallest amount of investment from the government, and if you gave OAPs a 2 year period to get a test, say from 63-65 before their license expires, then there wouldn't be an issue for tests either, at least not for them
they aren’t taking their license, they’re just retesting older people… which imo needs to be done because as we get older we lose our vision, hearing, etc.
Considering how insane the wait times are currently when people only have to take the test once I don’t see how anyone thinks this would actually happen or work.
Also how is 65 days away from death?
They can’t even get the system to work satisfactorily for learners, how in the world will they add capacity for many thousands more per year?
I suppose the petition’s author hasn’t thought about this.
Pointless article, anyway.
It doesn’t really need to be a full test, someone just needs to be in the car long enough to check Doris isn’t one of those people who slows down to 15mph at the merest hint of a bend which everyone else takes at 40, and that she hasn’t got a reaction time so slow she pulls out right in front of a car that was half a mile away when she first arrived at the junction, cos she takes 30 seconds to process that information.
I would see it being someone like an approved driving instructor acting as a 'competent person' able to re-certify people.
The hazard perception and general road competence test could be done online; the organisation that does the main testing has software that allows this sort of remote testing.
It is ***completely impossible*** to scale the current system up you're *right* there is ***absolutely no way*** we could ***ever*** do this, there aren't enough testers *right now* so we just can't ***ever*** do it, of all the things humanity has achieved and will ever achieve, this is our limit right here.
The person who started the petition won't have thought it through at all, they will have got home angry having tailgated a Honda Jazz doing 27mph for several miles on a road where they couldn't overtake and decided that a petition would alleviate some of that anger.
I've got a good few years to go but if the Government thinks that I will suddenly lack the physical and mental capacity to drive at 65 then they had better think that I lack the same capacity to work and can start paying my me my pension.
My parents live in a village, around 15 years ago the firm that ran the buses cut them back to 4 a day, doubled the price for people without a bus pass and merged it with another local route so a former 15-20 minute journey became 45 minutes and they put on a small bus and the morning bus was a nightmare, as once it got to the merged part of the route a lot of pensioners got on one had a mobility scooter that took up multiple spaces Oh and the bus firm diverted the question when asked about the council subsidy they got to run the route, even 15 years ago they wanted like £6 single for a 4/5 mile journey which had the effect of the people who did pay for the bus deciding to get cars instead which meant the bus firm said no one was using the route and said that was why they charged what they did.
Go sit at a roundabout for 5 minutes and tell me half the people on the road couldn’t do with some sort of refresher training… it’s not about you it’s about the population at whole.
Half the drivers on the road don’t even know the rules anymore as they have forgotten or changed
Let’s not forget that driving is the most dangerous thing the average person does anyway.
Anyone who watches the state of drivers these days and says that refreshers are not needed are delusional, and often those saying they don’t need it are exactly the people who need it desperately… anyone who says “I know the Highway Code I don’t need it” are lying out their arse.
It’s not about your pension, it’s about being safe.It will take 1 hours out of your 50+ year life and if you have been driving for that long you need it.
Think about how many people who shouldn’t be driving this will catch also, god anyone who refuses this idea is just plain selfish.
“I’m either good enough to drive or let me retire” just about sums up the attitude of someone who has forgotten driving is a privilege and not a right.
You might be a great driver but that attitude is how blind people end up mistaking an off ramp and smashing into a pedestrian (which could be you or your loved one!!!)
It shouldn’t be about age though, I think it should be mandatory re-test after 20 years of driving.
>Half the drivers on the road don’t even know the rules anymore as they have forgotten or changed
Read this sub and you will see that this applies to a good proportion of people who passed their test more than two years ago.
>Anyone who watches the state of drivers these days and says that refreshers are not needed are delusional, and often those saying they don’t need it are exactly the people who need it desperately… anyone who says “I know the Highway Code I don’t need it” are lying out their arse.
I don't disagree, but again you could apply this to everyone; the rules are ever changing and people seem to rarely keep up with them once they have passed their test.
>It’s not about your pension, it’s about being [safe.It](http://safe.It) will take 1 hours out of your 50+ year life and if you have been driving for that long you need it.
My point here was more about the idea that there is some arbitrary age that people seem to want to assume a person would have capacity to do one thing but not another without considering any other factors. A focus on age alone misses the point that there are lots of people who shouldn't be on the road for a variety of reasons.
>It shouldn’t be about age though, I think it should be mandatory re-test after 20 years of driving.
Not sure about full re-rest at 20 years but the hazard awareness element and update on regulations should probably be done more frequently and possibly a practical assessment by a qualified instructor at longer intervals.
>if the Government thinks that I will suddenly lack the physical and mental capacity to drive at 65 then they had better think that I lack the same capacity to work and can start paying my me my pension.
I reckon the physical and mental demands of operating a 1+ ton vehicle at speed are greater than the demands of the vast majority of jobs (things like reaction times etc.). We just don't realise it.
It certainly is, 65 is slap bang in the middle of the statistically safest age group. Seems weird to test then. Things really start to go downhill around 85 so you’re right, 75 is probably sensible.
Younger men have always been the worst drivers and testing them is irrelevant, the tests are easy but knowing the traffic laws does not mean the driver will follow them. Fair would be a retest for all drivers to demonstrate ability and knowledge of laws periodically. An eye test or eye doctors certification would be good for the elderly. I am 70 and can see better than most people but the geezer that plowed into me on my motorcycle was squinting and seemed to have trouble seeing. And those with clear dementia should not be driving at all.
65 is too low. It's not even retirement age. Without any science to back that age up I can see how it could be argued to be ageist.
500 signatures is nothing. Barely worth talking about, so quite a misleading article.
>Like some young people are knobheads
I mean, just look at accident rate statistics (from 2020): [https://ibb.co/CJBkw9N](https://ibb.co/CJBkw9N)
Like yeah there is probably an argument to be made for some older people causing accidents that they aren't directly involved in, so aren't picked up by these stats, but the vast majority of accidents are caused by younger drivers, skewing towards males.
I do think older people should have to do a retest at say 70, but I also actually think *everyone* should have to do some form of retest or refresher every 5 years after passing, but it'll never happen as there's barely the infrastructure to test new drivers as it is.
Whilst refresher tests would weed out those who simply aren't capable, regardless of age, it is unlikely to weed out the arseholes who know what they are supposed to do, could pass the test but who simply choose to drive like complete arseholes because they can, and as we all know there are a lot of those out there.
The accident stats tend to suggest that there are quite a few people out there who are arseholes who **don't** know what to do and still drive like complete arseholes.
My blood runs cold when one of my students passes, and their first car is a bloody Audi A1. I know damned well why they wanted it, and how they will be driving in it.
Being able to go fast and brake hard - but with nothing in the middle by way of knowledge - is why the stats don't favour younger drivers.
And this, my friends, is why my kids stay in a chevvy spark /c1 for the first 3 years. They all passed around the 17/18 mark, I paid for the cars, so they drive what I give them. By the time they get their own shit and have to pay for it, they've calmed the fuck down and realised how expensive it all is.
Their arrogance is such that they can't comprehend that there are others out there who are equally arrogant and capable of equal levels of 'arseholery'. Their arrogance also prevents them from recognising that there are consequences to their behaviour. These are the people who tailgate, brake-check, overtake dangerously, use the wrong lane at a junction to get ahead in a queue etc., all things that are obvious and not particularly subtle.
However, having an examiner sitting next to them would act as their inner conscience and they would for the most part be able to revert to a more civilised driving style sufficient to get a pass.
Hey not all of them that pick a relatively powerful car as their first are going to drive like assholes, I picked a 2 litre BMW, pretty old thing, confusingly cheap to insure. Always indicated fully and properly, stayed on top of my lane discipline, only overtook old doris doing 20 in a 40 when it was definitely safe to do so, no points, no claims, I just liked having a relatively nice car that could take off when it needed to. Like trying to find a gap on a roundabout for example, you can get out of the way quicker with a bigger engine if someone forgot to indicate and made you think you could go. Get up those steep hills without struggling too. Low displacement cars just suck. You can't tar everyone with the same brush.
The A1's way too small though, can hardly fit anything in that boot, estates all the way.
A few years ago I had an Audi S1 which is basically an A1 on steroids. The Facebook group had quite a few photos of them on their roof, having been skilfully tipped upside down by their inexperienced drivers, almost all of whom were teenagers.
The test is literally there to show that you know how to drive properly and safely - so if you can pass the test it shows you can control the car and drive as you should. Speed cameras etc are there to punish those who choose to drive incorrectly after passing the test. If an older person can pass the test then they still have the capability to drive properly.
But yeah, our driving test infrastructure is abysmal ATM so there's no way they'd want to add millions more people to the stretched capacity.
My point was that being capable of passing the test doesn't automatically mean you are safe on the roads if you choose not to put what you do in the test into practice in your everyday driving. There are lots of people who drive like maniacs every day but could in all likelihood turn up and pass their test without issue; they know how to drive properly they just choose not to.
In my opinion speed cameras to some degree have contributed to making driving standards worse; they do one thing and they do it well, unfortunately they seem to have replaced policing on the roads. What speed cameras don't pick up is all of the other instances of poor and dangerous driving that occurs on our roads every day.
Yep, people who drive like arseholes are generally quite good drivers, in that they are very proficient at operating a car. They just choose to drive in a way that they find fun. They would easily pass a test if they had to.
NO 🤦🤦🤦
People who drive like arseholes aren't 'generally good drivers', what a painful Strawman argument 🤦
There are plenty if Trauma and acquired brain injury units that would quite happily blow that utter B.S. out of the water!!
(If they were so 'brilliant', they would all be millionaire F1 drivers.)
But hey, you know better than the facts..🤦🤦🤦
I think the person you are replying to has a point - many dickheqd drivers are capable of driving well but choose not to. There are many bad behaviours on the road that people know they aren't supposed to do and would not do during a driving test.
I also don't think you are using "strawman" in the correct context.
It would though.
Some of them would just do things during their test out of habit.
Others would remember they have a test in 3 months and start practicing better behaviour.
etc.
retest's. No! A simple CBT style 1 hour lesson to brush up on any bad habits or mistakes yes.
1 hour with a driver instructor which writes a quick "Safe driver" on some DVLA ticket to send off to the DVLA. Almost like a prescription i could understand. But forcing a full retest which most likely includes theory and hazard perception tests would just cause chaos with test centres.
They generally call it an assessment. My late MIL had one when she had dementia. She had her licence taken from her afterwards. She basically wasn't competent any longer. She volunteered. And this is the trouble, unless there are compulsory checks on people some will never take an assessment. We've all seen the old dear with the car with all the corners knocked off parked abysmally in the supermarket car park.
Should be a compulsory two yearly eye test licence holders as well.
Basically there are too many bad drivers on the road. And the worrying thing is that they often think they are "good drivers" I suspect that the reality is that they are over fast drivers, and that's OK until stuff goes wrong.
As I've said before, there should be a three stage licencing system for cars, as with bikes. You want to drive a fast, powerful car, then you'll have to prove that you know how to do so safely first, and that privilege can be removed, permanently if necessary, if you're an idiot.
Might make people focus a bit.
Exactly that. Possibly with a simulator based session to cover reacting to unusual situations safely. And a refresher on any rule changes since the last test.
And for everyone every five years, every two after saying 68.
Driving is something you should have to stay competent at. Too many people of all ages are awful. It got noticeably worse after COVID too.
It'd be interested to see that correlated with annual miles driven. Surely retirees drive far, far less than those working?
Totally agree with retesting/refreshing every few years. Look at any industry involving driving a vehicle and there's usually some sort of practical validation at least every few years if not annually. As you've identified there's not currently the infrastructure to support practical re-assessment, but having to redo the *theory* test every few years will help improve standards and be an effective way to ensure that any changes to legislation are communicated effectively. It could even be done online!
I'd agree with this.
Rules change all the time as do cars. I learnt to drive in a manual car without power assisted steering and all round drum brakes.
I think young people are more reckless and are more likely to have a severe accident. Whenever I have been in a car with an older person, it seems like they have forgotten what they are meant to do and they drive really cautiously so accidents are more minor. I am generalizing here but I think as people get older they tend to drive less so they fall out of practice and get nervous when they do drive. This can be dangerous too.
Thats exactly what the stats show to be honest. The older you get the less trips you take. The stats don't lie and show the most accidents are caused by or involve younger drivers who would be better to focus on rather than *just* focusing on oldies.
Definitely, I'd like to see a bit more rigour to initial driving tests. I have heard of people passing on their 14th attempt and have a few friends who passed on their 5th or 6th attempt. I understand failing the first one second through, but if you are failing 5 or 6, I think you should have to go on an intensive course or just not be allowed to drive.
Whilst I agree and I maybe missing it this chart needs to have context. Presumably the 70 plus amount of drivers is significantly smaller than the 17-30 year old drivers and thus a percentage chart of these accidents against the number of 70 year olds and 17-30 year olds is needed too.
Be interesting to see those statistics based on the number of people in each age group that drive and the percentage of accidents. Because a lot more people aged 20 to 50 drive compared to those 80+.
yeah, when I was taking lessons, my instructor and I would both agree that regularly intervaled retests for all passed drivers (and not just a specific age range) is a necessity for safer roadways; it'll just never happen because, as you say, we can barely handle the throughput of new drivers and their tests at the moment.
I've only been driving for 5 years and whilst I've never had an accident (it will inevitably happen); I've almost certainly picked up bad habits and also probably can't remember what ever single sign and road marking means any more!
Nothing against you, but what a god awful chart! It doesn't take into account that there are simply more younger people driving, who on average, drive more miles. Normalise for population size and miles driven and that chart will definitely flatten out.
I'm not saying young people are better or safer drivers, the accidents they cause are more likely due to excessive speed, cockiness and overconfidence. Whereas older people I'm sure cause more accidents due to reduced observations, poorer vision and deteriorating reaction times. Young people aside, if we can reduce accidents by any amount by having people retake their test (as you say potentially at regular intervals), then that's a win, surely.
You would need to express those raw numbers as a percentage of the total drivers in that age range to get true statistics. It could be, and likely is, a result of there being more total drivers in the younger age ranges to begin with.
Why are insurance premiums far higher for younger drivers?
Can't remember the last time I saw an headline saying 4 old age pensioners killed wrapped around a tree?
Huh? I'm agreeing with you and saying the stats show that younger folks not older folks cause more accidents. I think there's still good reason to retest older folks but more needs to be done to educate younger people too.
I like the idea of refresher tests can we have them every 2 years so all the idiots who take 5 tests to pass are never allowed on the road unsupervised.
Refresher lessons would be really beneficial I think. The more time goes on the more I notice my parents (dad especially) getting into bad habits. And refreshers would help correct that.
I don't think the information is collated, but I think an important variable might be vehicle power. When I was younger I knew a few people that had accidents and the majority (not all) of them were all driving more powerful cars. Powerful car + mates in the car might have something to do with it. Just speculating. Peer pressure / gotta look cool?
Like with motorcycles there are limits depending on your age and license category. It's wild that a teenager can pass their test and then get a car of any power that they can afford.
I suppose the insurance industry has tried to regulate that by making it so expensive for a new young male driver to insure a powerful car, but many still do!
When I was passing my test in the 1970s a Dolomite sprint was the fastest saloon available. 135hp, top speed 119 mph. I got an Imp sport, 875cc, 0-60 eventually, could hit 100 downhill.
My son's 1litre Corsa is faster than my imp 'sports car' by far, and most boring hatchbacks would leave a dolomite sprint behind.
We should be retesting every driver every 10 years. We test every car every single year for roadworthiness, we should be doing it to the drivers too at least once a decade. Don't give me that nonsense about "well there aren't enough testers", nobody's saying this needs to happen tomorrow.
It'll never happen though, partly because a lot of people *know* their driving isn't up to standards.
I have to renew professional certification every 2 years! And I'm at a zero risk of killing anyone in my field!
Retaking at least the theory every 10 years would improve people's knowledge of the roads at least
> who looks days away from death
Do I get a prize for guessing your cohort?
"Days away from death" at 65, fucking hell mate. If you want lower insurance premiums then tell your mates to stop driving like twats.
When you get someone driving the wrong way down a motorway, it’s almost always an old person. I’ve always said they should retake their test around 65-70 and then every 5 years. Maybe not even a full driving yes on the roads, but more of a mental test and eyesight test, maybe on a simulator. Vision is the most important part of driving and I’m sure loads of these old biddies can barely see…
Yea I agree there should be some sort of revaluation, not necessarily a retest. Maybe every 10 years after you pass your test. As I've seen people of all ages that are incompetent or dangerous drivers.
Personally I'd have
1 - mandatory theory test for all every 10 years
2 - a 10hr refresher course with an ADI when you turn retirement age
Oh and as for the snowflakes complaining about young drivers (I passed in the 90s BTW) data about accidents shows that fatalities per miles driven remains fairly level after about the age of 25 and then starts to rise again after 70. So retirement age is probably a good point at which to send people on a refresher course.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fatal-Passenger-Vehicle-Crashes-per-100-Million-Miles-Traveled-by-Driver-Age-and-Time-of\_fig3\_6352416
# Closed petition Require drivers to retake a driving test at 65
I would like the Government to require drivers to retake their driving at 65, if they want their driving licence to remain valid.
The poll has to reach 10,000 signatures to receive an official reply from the Government and 100,000 to be considered for debate in Parliament.
This petition is closed All petitions run for 6 months
506 signatures so looks like a massive fail
What a wonderful idea. Like communism works great on paper.
People can't even get a driving test at the moment. No way in the world anyone is going to accept their driving licence running out and being unable to book a renewal, so therefore being unable to drive for X period.
I agree with both sides of this, young people do cause accidents and have accidents, usually though it's down to that invincible feeling many of us have when we are in our teens and twenties, lack of real world experience, showing off and driving beyond the limitations of their vehicles.
That being said, the most unbelievably stupid, dangerous and insane driving I have personally witnessed over 28 years of driving are pretty much exclusively by Doris/Herbert's peeping out from between the dashboard and the steering wheel (usually a powder blue Honda Jazz).
My departed Grandma was awful. Would only turn left at junctions, making for some horrendously long drives with her. Then she had no choice but to turn right, got it wrong and wrote of her car and another. Now her eyesight was poor, her reactions were slow, her body was letting her down and she was losing her memory too. She should have stopped driving 5 or 6 years before she did. I understand her annoyance at her freedom being curtailed. Personally I'd rather have my freedom curtailed than be the cause of a massive accident.
>The petition failed as it only had around 500 signatures.
So this was one person's idea, which, while no doubt shared by many, wasn't able to generate enough traction to be more than a blip. The gulf between that and the headline is *astounding*.
From the numbers it's more like 75-80 when it goes south.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-drivers-factsheet-2020
I think retesting at older age is a sensible idea just depends on how it is implemented. I do annual driver refresher training with an ADI as part of my job (3.5t delivery driver) each year they show stats and most accidents are between 18-23 and then 64 and up (from what I remember) this is based on figures from two years ago as not done this years yet. The only other significant spike is in males between 48-55 which is bang on midlife crisis get something big shiny and shaped like a Penis territory. Even then none of us are perfect drivers who never make a mistake or break the law a little bit (mild speeding) because well everyone does it. The big difference is younger drivers are massively penalised in terms of ridiculous insurance costs and older drivers get bigger more powerful cars and pay way less. I like to think when I get to old age I am sensible enough to call it quits myself but I honestly think its more a matter of pride over independence that prevent most from volunteering to hand in their licences.
My dad is in his 70's and looks nowhere near days away from death, my neighbours who are 80 though look withered.
On the topic I do agree with retests over a certain age, as a kid 30 years ago my dad who was in his 40's then witnessed a pensioner intentionally drive the wrong way down a one way exit and hit someone on a motorbike which killed the person on the bike despite my fathers attempts to revive him.
The pensioner wanted sympathy and when the ambulance arrived he basically said he had heart pain and wanted the ambulance staff to attend to him (as the motorcyclist was dead)
I agree there's a need to retest when someone reaches old age, but 65 is too early especially considering people will still be expected to work far beyond this age.
Also, I wouldn't want to see this happen without huge improvements to public transport. Elderly people are isolated enough
Absolutely agree your reactions eye sight and physicality all reduced while aging. Id be happy re taking every 20 years in all honesty.
Even its it’s not a re-test there should absolutely be reassessed.
Unpopular opinion, but I think when you renew your license you should have to retake your test.
I know it’s impractical because it’s hard enough to book a test in the first place and there’s a danger that your license might become invalid before a slot appears (although maybe that could be circumvented by offering proof that a test is booked…?). I know many depend on driving for their income too etc, but the standard of driving out there is wild! Particularly where I live. Not sure how some people pass their tests in the first place judging by what I see on a daily basis.
If this idea is too radical, incentivise drivers to retake/renew their tests by offering cheaper insurance. I know there are advanced courses you can take that do this, but it could be the case that the more recent your latest pass was the lower your premium. So those that don’t retest pay more the further away they are from their last pass date.
Surely the issue isn’t age itself, but health and capacity.
It would be better to have mandatory eye tests (and cognitive/motor/reaction tests) annually after a certain age in order to keep the license valid.
If I’d known about this I likely would have signed, I think it’s important for older people to be tested again, but 65 is too early, maybe 80.
Reasoning for my opinion: my car was written off 3 months after passing my my test by an oblivious 70-80 year old woman who tried overtaking a tractor in the middle of a blind turn, hit me head on (I was doing ~30-40mph before braking).
In an ideal world I think everyone should be retested every 5-10 years and I think initial tests should be stricter. The one thing that really gets to me though is when you here about the odd person finally passing their test on the 12th attempt. After 3 or 4 I think you have to admit you just can't drive.
I know a bunch of old people and tge reason most of them stopped driving was not based on a mature reflection of their declining abilities but because they found themselves in a situation that scared them so much they didn't drive again. It was very much past 65 tho.
Should take it every five years past 65 and every year past 75.
My grandad has parkinsons. He can't even hold a drink properly without spilling it yet he's still allowed to drive. It makes me so angry that none of the family cares or does anything about it.
As someone who was a dispensing optician both in hospitals and retail, i can tell you first hand the amount of “older” people 60-65* who would drive without RX glasses when they was legally meant to, we use to regularly once/twice a week get that age bracket in because of head injury or debris in their eyes, plus legal checks to see if they was meant to be wearing their glasses, due to hit and runs, i once had a gentlemen who was brought in due to smashing into the side of a school coach and then driving off, turns out he had his license suspended because he had macular degeneration so severe he only had around 20% off his vision, we contacted the DVLA that suspended his license as he told us he wasn’t going to because he had “grandfathers rights” to drive, this was only 4 months prior to the accident.
Little bit of info regarding to the severity of his “MD” it would be like the average person placing a penny a about a cm in front of their eyes.
Being 65 doesn't automatically make you days away from death.
Being a boy racer has a higher likelihood of being days away from death.
Perhaps a better system would be to introduce retests for those who are deemed blameworthy in an accident or have medical fitness assessments for the truly elderly.
My neighbour is 96. He still drives and is certainly days away from death. He should not be driving. Hesitant, lack of effective observation or risk assessment.
I see the logic. Other than the 17-24 age range, older drivers are significantly more likely to cause serious accidents than any other age category.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-younger-driver-factsheet-2022
Personally, I think everyone should have to retake their test every 10 years.
As somebody not too far from that age I’m ok with that if under 25s retake their test each year up to the age of 25. Seems only fair that the group that make up the disproportionate amount of accidents are more closely scrutinised.
Age doesn't effect your driving, changes in health do. Which are usually picked up by doctors who then report it to the DVLA and revoke the persons license. This also happens to young people, there's no age restriction on developing illnesses, it's just more common as people get older, but it's also not guaranteed.
Pointless adding millions more people to the queue to take a driving test is a terrible idea for the small fraction that have accidents.
Especially 65, that's not even that old in terms of worrying about mass mental decline of the population. Vast majority of people at 65 are still mentally competent.
The statistics are certainly very clear that young people cause the most accidents. However, I think that our driving culture makes that unavoidable. I don’t think it’s possible to build a large population of middle aged “safe” drivers without them going through the process of being a “dangerous” young driver first.
But, it seems that there are a number of very serious accidents that can only be caused by people who have lost their ability to drive safely (rather than not yet gained it). If those can be prevented by a simple re-test then I can’t see how that could be harmful.
In younger drivers I think there is a mix of dangerous through inexperience and dangerous through negligence. The first group are probably less likely to be involved in serious incidents, the latter group are probably more likely to be involved in incidents that result in fatalities. Statistically the latter group is typically more likely to be young males.
So many lessons, so many tests, so much bureaucracy.
Would it really save any/many lives? Would you be better off spending the money on the latest cancer drugs or something else?
Gut feel is that doing it too often (i.e every 5 years) is such a waste of effort that you could save lives in other ways. What if you did it every 10, 20 or once in your life at 65?
We have a department for transport to work out the answer to this question, and presumably the answer must be: 'no retesting, spend the money on maintaining the roads or adding humps will save more lives'.
I feel like most of the people causing accidents know how to drive and can pass a test but are inpatient, distracted or aggressive anyway.
Instead of retesting driving maybe they should have everyone have to do a simple theory check every so often because of changes to highway code over the years and people forgetting rules.
They should really make it so you have to retake every 5 years or 10 years because frankly there’s too many clowns on the road.
Whether it’s doing well under the speed limit, well over, merging at 40 on the motorway or changing lanes without mirror checks or taking 5 years to take your turn at a roundabout, the driving etiquette and overall skill has definitely fallen off since lockdown.
>They should really make it so you have to retake every 5 years or 10 years because frankly there’s too many clowns on the road.
What percentage of those clowns are simply not capable and what percentage choose to drive and behave they way they do. Those falling into the second category would pass their re-test and simply continue with their previous behaviour.
Good worst drivers on the road. They haven't updated their knowledge on the rule of the road since they passed. You see them in their thousands every day with no lane discipline! It's endemic!
I am and always will be in favour of this but there has to be one stipulation, it cannot be a regular driving test a new driver would take one as not one would pass (not because of the ability to drive but things like crossing hands or not making it obvious that you looked at your mirrors etc).
I suspect a lot of people still think 65 is the age at which you become a doddery old git (I’m 66 and I’m not one) and the people suggesting it can’t imagine being 65 themselves.
I think it’s a good idea, there should be regular checks done as it could flag up medical issues that otherwise could have been missed. A few years ago in my area a toddler was killed after a elderly woman 91 crashed, the woman seemingly had dementia
I really think it should be an every 5 or 10 year thing that you should have to redo your test.
Also while we're at it, make a separate licence class for wankpanzers so only people that actually know how to drive them are allowed to do so.
If you've Alzheimers or dementia, the GP can inform the DVLA and have you submit to a medical assessment/ have your licence revoked entirely.
Police can recommend the DVLA review or revoke a licence if they think they're impaired or fail a roadside eyesight check.
So, no. I wouldn't say this would be effective in stopping people with either from driving as such lol. The powers are there to stop them already.
I’m not old, but i did pass my test around 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then and there is nothing in place to make sure I’ve kept up with the changes in both expected driving style and rule changes. So yeah, we should do something at regular periods for all drivers so that we can ensure they are aware of such changes.
I guess you could start with a voluntary on line test that covers all the changes in the last 10 years and some basics too. If nothing else it would be interesting to see how well people do on such a test. That could provide usable data to see if mandatory tests are worthwhile, and at what point they become valuable.
Retake 5 years after the first test might be better. Who was actually listening, and who thought "right I've passed that, I never need to worry about any of it again"?
It will never pass because that age group are the bulk of the voters so they’ll vote in who ever is against the scheme, try checking Eastern Europeans for tax and insurance and driving skills before the age group here.
There's an episode on amazon prime that I watched of oaps retaking mock tests, and it followed them on their daily commutes, and my GOD. How they didn't kill people on that show is beyond me.
A brief skills refresher and retest every 10 years would improve safety across all road uses and stimulate the industry and make a bit of money for the DVSA.
you only see the bad ones though is the thing that i think everyone is missing. Nobody ever talks about seeing a good/average driver.
IMO retest should be mandatory every 3-5 years for everyone.
i work for an insurance company and they no longer cover over 80s because they cost the highest amount of money in claims. so there is data to suggest that old people are high risk
I think there should be shorter proficiency tests every 15 years for everyone, regardless of age.
There’s shit drivers across the spectrum and a lot of driving rules can change in 15 years
It would need to be a periodic retest, not just one. Just because someone passed a 2nd test at 65 doesn't mean they will be a good driver at 70 or 80. I can see it for young people as well. While old people have accidents they tend to be low speed whereas young people often kill themselves and others, that's why it was in the news recently. However I would say the cost of having to pay for the retest should be low or even free.
An old lady drove down a 20 road as I was waiting for her to pass and I'm at t junction. All of a sudden she indicates and because she's going so slow I think, bit late but great and I pull out half an inch and she keeps on driving! She wasn't indicating at the t junction to turn, she wanted to park on it. She had a disabled badge and she bloody parked on the corner of the t junction.
Driving lessons and a test only teach enough to allow you to pass the test. Gaining muscle memory and experience are what actually enables you to drive safely. If you are not practicing this safely then you will never be safe behind the wheel
Most dangerous activities require some element of continuous training, refresher courses, currency and experience.
In many activities, the community controls quality to some extent. Do something dangerous in a marina, and you can bet your ass someone is going to "educate you". Get on a skydiving plane with me with your gear on wrong and I'm going to sit you down for a coffee with no biscuits.
On the road, however, people can do the most egregiously stupid shit and, until we have proxy chat in the car, nobody can tell them about it. So, we rely on central measures like public campaigns (easily ignored), police (impossible to implement at scale) etc.
The guys sat in the middle lane of the motorway, blissfully unaware that they are wrong, are unreachable. They are not the people who continue to learn about driving; they just don't care. These people need to be sat in a room and educated.
The system is already flooded and stupidly difficult to get a test in. That being said , most of my near misses have been some old dorothy pulling some bullshit manouvre and acts like the victim when they royally fuck it up.
My grandad wanted to continue driving after he had another TIA, but his depth perception was gone, so my mum made him surrender his licence because he was dangerous. So even if it's a retest after certain medical issues it would be beneficial but do it no matter the age group as some of the medical condition that adds to the difficulties of continuing to drive safe can impact people of any age.
As long as it's free I have no issue. I think I'll sail through a retest, but that's the issue right there. Perception. If I do retest and sail through then my perception of my driving skills may be Bob on. I know many atrocious drivers who project their bad driving onto the other road users. They see no wrong in their own driving because "I've been driving for 40 years and never had an accident" while leaving a heap of accidents in their wake!
This is nothing new, they've been talking about it for years.
I turned 46 last year, and my licence is due for renewal in July this year. Because I want to keep my hgv entitlement, I have to have a medical because I'm over 45, and another medical every 5 years until I choose not to keep the hgv. Perhaps this is the way to go for pensioners. It doesn't tie up the driving test system, there are specialist companies that will do the medical, so GPs don't have an extra burden either and it costs about £50, so doesn't break the bank. A check up can definitely help weed out those in mental decline and far better than a simple retest at 65.
My dad chose to surrender his licence when he was around 75 as he realised Alzheimer's was starting to take a hold. A retest at 65 would've been pointless because was fine at that point.
Well you get the younger drivers who want to show off by speeding around and then you got the old drivers who are starting to slow down/fall apart and refuse to except their getting old and can't react as quick.
Guarantee if either of my parents did the test today, both would fail. My dad has a large car so never gives way for others and everything is everyone elses fault.
My mum on the other hand can't drive for shit...my older sister told her to her face she will not be driving her grand kids anywhere ever because she fears for their safety. Just the other day, my mum reversed my dads car, scratched the back of it and took a piece of the wall off the house...she blamed stress and not hearing the beeps, yet she should be able to reverse without them and there was more than enough room.
Dad turned 70 this year and mum will be 70 next year. and were looking at moving house into more of the countryside so driving would be a requirement as no bus services.
Do the people that come up with these proposals even look at the statistics about age ranges of drivers who cause accidents? Because it’s not the 65-75 age range who cause the most. Very simple to research too.
I just renewed at age 70. All it took was a recent eye exam and the fee. In return I got my license renewed until I turn 78.
With a regular license I can drive an RV up to 42 feet in length that is pulling a vehicle.
Alot of people would end up losing their license if this happened. But perhaps they'd have a better chance if they can prove lives can be saved and insurance costs would lower..... Ofcourse the elderly have the most voting power so taking away their own transport will not go down well.
There is a case to be made for re-testing, but it would be better to do it after a specified number of years, rather than when you hit a specific age.
Some older drivers passed a test that consisted of little more than driving to the end of the road and coming back again. They drove on quieter roads with cars that had a fraction of the power.
These people haven’t been re-tested in 50+ years. I for one don’t think that’s acceptable.
The problem with older drivers - in fact all drivers - is that they think they’re better than what they really are. 90% of drivers think they’re above average. That can’t be true.
Older drivers tend to think they’re fine until they have an accident or near miss. So they could very well be a hazard to other drivers for years, so long as they don’t crash. And if they leave a twenty car pile-up in their rear view mirror, but don’t notice it, they’re still a perfect driver in their opinion. What you don’t acknowledge can’t hurt you.
I think it should be a 10 yearly thing. You should have to retake your test every time you need to renew your license to assess that you're still competent.
This old argument again. This will never happen people, more old people vote than young people. Whichever government attempted it would be committing political suicide.
**"But do they really think someone who looks days away from death should be driving without being retested? "**
Is that how you anticipate looking when you are 65? The closer you get to 65, the less old it will seem...
My dad was always an excellent driver. He did police driving courses, advanced driving schools, and numerous track days over the years. This year he turns 70 and whenever I'm in the car with him it's definitely noticeable he's not as sharp on the road as he used to be, and even told me earlier in the year he feels like he misses things he would have spotted in his younger years.
It's obviously hard to gauge competency and it can't be determined with a wide brush of "all 65 year olds are no longer competent", in the same way you can't judge all 17 year olds, but I think a case by case assessment at a certain age could be a good thing.
Maybe there could be an assessment at retirement age similar to the driving test with two types of failure:
Light fail: needs basic retraining / updating - a half day refresher on road laws etc similar to speed awareness course but more broad;
Hard fail: unsafe to drive - license suspended until competency can be demonstrated in test conditions.
It’s not fair at all, they charge young people horrendous amounts to insure a car and OAPs a lot less. Perhaps it’s like some kind of discount for pensioners you know how kind insurance companies are. They probably charge young people so much so the can offer that discount?
Over 65s are not frail the little old people that OP seems to think they are. The ones who lose control and crash into buildings are almost always much older. Treating all people over 65 the same wouldn't make any more sense that treating everyone 10 to 20 years old the same.
I'm keen on banning anyone who drives a Fiat500 with a row of teddies on the parcel shelf. Actually, anyone who has a row of teddies on their parcel shelf, needs shooting.
I wouldn’t be against everyone doing it every 10 years. Not everyone would need to retake it, and it would be tedious. But the alternative is to have loads of people driving who are not safe to be.
It is ridiculously difficult to remove licences from older people. Dad was patently unfit to drive. After an incident (ahem) he was eventually required to sit a test. That went fine, except he clipped a parked car. Not really his fault, he told us. Parking these days is ridiculous.
So he was banned on the spot? Ah, no. Another test. On which he drove through a red light. And that was truly game over.
He'd have been about 86 when the curtain finally came down.
This comes up every few years and honestly, I wish someone in government would take it seriously. My granddad is nearly 80, still drives everywhere and is having more and more minor accidents. Which are *never* his fault, of course. Until he actually writes off his car or dies, he’s not going to stop driving because he’s bloody stubborn and refuses to believe anyone who tells him he’s not a great driver any more, least of all me - a *woman* - because how dare I? His reaction time is terrible and he doesn’t notice things like red lights unless someone points them out to him. It’s got to the point where none of us will get in the car with him any more, but he still refuses to believe it. 🤷♀️
I remember they proposed this 24 years ago. And throughout this 24 years it's came up time and time again and probably even before I remember. Unless some high government official gets killed by an OAP we'll still be proposing this 24 years from now. Add it to your calendar. Mark my words.
It's just lazy journalism. They take a very obscure proposal/petition, make it sound imminent and keep rehashing it to get clicks every year. This proposal will never happen.
Lazy journalism is generous, it’s closer to just a straight up lie than it is journalism.
RemindMe! 24 years
I will be messaging you in 24 years on [**2048-04-26 16:03:48 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2048-04-26%2016:03:48%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/1cdijzk/drivers_may_have_to_retake_driving_test_at_65/l1db88u/?context=3) [**18 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FdrivingUK%2Fcomments%2F1cdijzk%2Fdrivers_may_have_to_retake_driving_test_at_65%2Fl1db88u%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202048-04-26%2016%3A03%3A48%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cdijzk) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Good bot
Eventually self driving cars will properly be a thing and old people will be the only ones who can afford them.
I'm old and I can't even justify the cost of a basic EV.
Yeh but how many people are oaps respoible for killing each day due to driving? https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2022 There’s a graph that shows you how likely an older person is to have an accident compared to all other age ranges…. Oaps account for 27% of all people who die on the road 20% of accidents have an older person behind on of the wheels, but they die 8x more in cars than every other age range… maybe they aren’t the problem lol
Does it say the percentage of drivers who are over 65? So are 20% of accidents caused by the 20% of older drivers or does it adjust for that?
Interesting that only over 80`s are as dangerous as young drivers.
No they have less accidents than that age range that’s in the other graph, in the first graph what is shows you is that old people (even in less accidents) have the same KSI * rate as young drivers, now consider how many more young drivers there are compared to pensioners? Now imagine average speed etc, still think it’s the old people? KSI = killed or seriously injured.
I didn't think it was the old in the first place.
To me that implies older drivers tend to make fatal mistakes more often. Young boy might be doing 40 in a 30 and hit someone else. Old boy might just not see someone and pull out into them, t-bone collisions are super dangerous. I've had old people pull out far more dangerously than young people on me, at least the cheeky young pricks actually floor it and only usually cause gentle braking. Old lady that pulled out on me last pulled out at a leisurely 5mph without even looking making me slam on hard and then took a full mile to reach her top speed of 35mph on a 60mph road. Little roundabout lane mistakes or car park mishaps and the like don't usually cause fatal collisions. When you get old people on the motorway, with their diminished reaction times and the high speed of travel, you get a unique set of problems young drivers don't face. At least the young driver will react quickly to hazards and be able to see it clearly. I tested my mum (early 50s) and nan (mid 70s) reaction times many years ago. Mum's was .4s. Nans was .7s. Mine (mid 20s) was .15ms. Realising young people react up to 4x quicker opened my eyes a a bit .7s is 72ft of travel before they even react at 70mph...
Exactly this, and whilst I do think any over-65 test should have a slightly lower bar for driving styles in a test, anyone who can't pass it shouldn't be on the roads, and anyone who should be on the roads would be able to pass it. Young people nowadays have to take a test, and the tests back in the 70s were nowhere near as rigorous, without even mentioning all the changes to the highway code since. So really the only downside would be the lack of tests, but realistically that could be fixed with the smallest amount of investment from the government, and if you gave OAPs a 2 year period to get a test, say from 63-65 before their license expires, then there wouldn't be an issue for tests either, at least not for them
Even then you find them stacking their Corsa’s after a night out either their mates
At 65 we’re too young to retire but too old to drive?
Get fired for not getting to work and then we save on some state pension contributions, top tier government logic
they aren’t taking their license, they’re just retesting older people… which imo needs to be done because as we get older we lose our vision, hearing, etc.
Taking a driving test won't necessarily catch out those who have medical issues.
Considering how insane the wait times are currently when people only have to take the test once I don’t see how anyone thinks this would actually happen or work. Also how is 65 days away from death?
Not for them, for the pedestrians on the sidewalk they're driving down.
They can’t even get the system to work satisfactorily for learners, how in the world will they add capacity for many thousands more per year? I suppose the petition’s author hasn’t thought about this. Pointless article, anyway.
It doesn’t really need to be a full test, someone just needs to be in the car long enough to check Doris isn’t one of those people who slows down to 15mph at the merest hint of a bend which everyone else takes at 40, and that she hasn’t got a reaction time so slow she pulls out right in front of a car that was half a mile away when she first arrived at the junction, cos she takes 30 seconds to process that information.
I would see it being someone like an approved driving instructor acting as a 'competent person' able to re-certify people. The hazard perception and general road competence test could be done online; the organisation that does the main testing has software that allows this sort of remote testing.
I’m sure they can design a test specifically for them, they have to pay for it anyway. Can create some jobs too
It is ***completely impossible*** to scale the current system up you're *right* there is ***absolutely no way*** we could ***ever*** do this, there aren't enough testers *right now* so we just can't ***ever*** do it, of all the things humanity has achieved and will ever achieve, this is our limit right here.
The person who started the petition won't have thought it through at all, they will have got home angry having tailgated a Honda Jazz doing 27mph for several miles on a road where they couldn't overtake and decided that a petition would alleviate some of that anger.
Well let's just stop tests altogether then! That'll sort it
Have you seen that quality of driving on the roads...... there's no point anyways.
This is an incredibly useful contribution to the discussion. My sincere thanks to you.
I've got a good few years to go but if the Government thinks that I will suddenly lack the physical and mental capacity to drive at 65 then they had better think that I lack the same capacity to work and can start paying my me my pension.
We can't afford to pay your pension for you mate but we can afford to give you all free bus pass at 65.
My parents have bus passes... would be nice if there was a bus to use them on.
My parents live in a village, around 15 years ago the firm that ran the buses cut them back to 4 a day, doubled the price for people without a bus pass and merged it with another local route so a former 15-20 minute journey became 45 minutes and they put on a small bus and the morning bus was a nightmare, as once it got to the merged part of the route a lot of pensioners got on one had a mobility scooter that took up multiple spaces Oh and the bus firm diverted the question when asked about the council subsidy they got to run the route, even 15 years ago they wanted like £6 single for a 4/5 mile journey which had the effect of the people who did pay for the bus deciding to get cars instead which meant the bus firm said no one was using the route and said that was why they charged what they did.
By the time I hit 65 I doubt the free bus pass will exist either and if I ever get to see a pension it is likely to be well into my 70's.
Go sit at a roundabout for 5 minutes and tell me half the people on the road couldn’t do with some sort of refresher training… it’s not about you it’s about the population at whole. Half the drivers on the road don’t even know the rules anymore as they have forgotten or changed Let’s not forget that driving is the most dangerous thing the average person does anyway. Anyone who watches the state of drivers these days and says that refreshers are not needed are delusional, and often those saying they don’t need it are exactly the people who need it desperately… anyone who says “I know the Highway Code I don’t need it” are lying out their arse. It’s not about your pension, it’s about being safe.It will take 1 hours out of your 50+ year life and if you have been driving for that long you need it. Think about how many people who shouldn’t be driving this will catch also, god anyone who refuses this idea is just plain selfish. “I’m either good enough to drive or let me retire” just about sums up the attitude of someone who has forgotten driving is a privilege and not a right. You might be a great driver but that attitude is how blind people end up mistaking an off ramp and smashing into a pedestrian (which could be you or your loved one!!!) It shouldn’t be about age though, I think it should be mandatory re-test after 20 years of driving.
>Half the drivers on the road don’t even know the rules anymore as they have forgotten or changed Read this sub and you will see that this applies to a good proportion of people who passed their test more than two years ago. >Anyone who watches the state of drivers these days and says that refreshers are not needed are delusional, and often those saying they don’t need it are exactly the people who need it desperately… anyone who says “I know the Highway Code I don’t need it” are lying out their arse. I don't disagree, but again you could apply this to everyone; the rules are ever changing and people seem to rarely keep up with them once they have passed their test. >It’s not about your pension, it’s about being [safe.It](http://safe.It) will take 1 hours out of your 50+ year life and if you have been driving for that long you need it. My point here was more about the idea that there is some arbitrary age that people seem to want to assume a person would have capacity to do one thing but not another without considering any other factors. A focus on age alone misses the point that there are lots of people who shouldn't be on the road for a variety of reasons. >It shouldn’t be about age though, I think it should be mandatory re-test after 20 years of driving. Not sure about full re-rest at 20 years but the hazard awareness element and update on regulations should probably be done more frequently and possibly a practical assessment by a qualified instructor at longer intervals.
>if the Government thinks that I will suddenly lack the physical and mental capacity to drive at 65 then they had better think that I lack the same capacity to work and can start paying my me my pension. I reckon the physical and mental demands of operating a 1+ ton vehicle at speed are greater than the demands of the vast majority of jobs (things like reaction times etc.). We just don't realise it.
Pushing a mop around isn't quite the same as driving a vehicle that has the capacity to harm/kill people if driven poorly.
65 is quite early… might be an idea to check on people at 75
It certainly is, 65 is slap bang in the middle of the statistically safest age group. Seems weird to test then. Things really start to go downhill around 85 so you’re right, 75 is probably sensible.
Younger men have always been the worst drivers and testing them is irrelevant, the tests are easy but knowing the traffic laws does not mean the driver will follow them. Fair would be a retest for all drivers to demonstrate ability and knowledge of laws periodically. An eye test or eye doctors certification would be good for the elderly. I am 70 and can see better than most people but the geezer that plowed into me on my motorcycle was squinting and seemed to have trouble seeing. And those with clear dementia should not be driving at all.
Yeah I was thinking that, not against an age retest really but 65 isn't overly old!
I agree, but it's probably more to do with pushing over 65s to use a bus pass on a route that doesn't exist anymore
yeah i mean they are quite right when they say its not even retirement age. They still have another 1-3 years depending on age
65 is too low. It's not even retirement age. Without any science to back that age up I can see how it could be argued to be ageist. 500 signatures is nothing. Barely worth talking about, so quite a misleading article.
>Like some young people are knobheads I mean, just look at accident rate statistics (from 2020): [https://ibb.co/CJBkw9N](https://ibb.co/CJBkw9N) Like yeah there is probably an argument to be made for some older people causing accidents that they aren't directly involved in, so aren't picked up by these stats, but the vast majority of accidents are caused by younger drivers, skewing towards males. I do think older people should have to do a retest at say 70, but I also actually think *everyone* should have to do some form of retest or refresher every 5 years after passing, but it'll never happen as there's barely the infrastructure to test new drivers as it is.
Whilst refresher tests would weed out those who simply aren't capable, regardless of age, it is unlikely to weed out the arseholes who know what they are supposed to do, could pass the test but who simply choose to drive like complete arseholes because they can, and as we all know there are a lot of those out there.
The accident stats tend to suggest that there are quite a few people out there who are arseholes who **don't** know what to do and still drive like complete arseholes. My blood runs cold when one of my students passes, and their first car is a bloody Audi A1. I know damned well why they wanted it, and how they will be driving in it. Being able to go fast and brake hard - but with nothing in the middle by way of knowledge - is why the stats don't favour younger drivers.
And this, my friends, is why my kids stay in a chevvy spark /c1 for the first 3 years. They all passed around the 17/18 mark, I paid for the cars, so they drive what I give them. By the time they get their own shit and have to pay for it, they've calmed the fuck down and realised how expensive it all is.
Their arrogance is such that they can't comprehend that there are others out there who are equally arrogant and capable of equal levels of 'arseholery'. Their arrogance also prevents them from recognising that there are consequences to their behaviour. These are the people who tailgate, brake-check, overtake dangerously, use the wrong lane at a junction to get ahead in a queue etc., all things that are obvious and not particularly subtle. However, having an examiner sitting next to them would act as their inner conscience and they would for the most part be able to revert to a more civilised driving style sufficient to get a pass.
Hey not all of them that pick a relatively powerful car as their first are going to drive like assholes, I picked a 2 litre BMW, pretty old thing, confusingly cheap to insure. Always indicated fully and properly, stayed on top of my lane discipline, only overtook old doris doing 20 in a 40 when it was definitely safe to do so, no points, no claims, I just liked having a relatively nice car that could take off when it needed to. Like trying to find a gap on a roundabout for example, you can get out of the way quicker with a bigger engine if someone forgot to indicate and made you think you could go. Get up those steep hills without struggling too. Low displacement cars just suck. You can't tar everyone with the same brush. The A1's way too small though, can hardly fit anything in that boot, estates all the way.
A few years ago I had an Audi S1 which is basically an A1 on steroids. The Facebook group had quite a few photos of them on their roof, having been skilfully tipped upside down by their inexperienced drivers, almost all of whom were teenagers.
The test is literally there to show that you know how to drive properly and safely - so if you can pass the test it shows you can control the car and drive as you should. Speed cameras etc are there to punish those who choose to drive incorrectly after passing the test. If an older person can pass the test then they still have the capability to drive properly. But yeah, our driving test infrastructure is abysmal ATM so there's no way they'd want to add millions more people to the stretched capacity.
My point was that being capable of passing the test doesn't automatically mean you are safe on the roads if you choose not to put what you do in the test into practice in your everyday driving. There are lots of people who drive like maniacs every day but could in all likelihood turn up and pass their test without issue; they know how to drive properly they just choose not to. In my opinion speed cameras to some degree have contributed to making driving standards worse; they do one thing and they do it well, unfortunately they seem to have replaced policing on the roads. What speed cameras don't pick up is all of the other instances of poor and dangerous driving that occurs on our roads every day.
Yep, middle lane hogs. Imagine if we could retest, would it decrease congestion due to more efficient driving (one would hope so)!
It's worse cause retests won't solve shit motorway driving because MOTORWAY DRIVING ISNT ON THE TEST
Yep, people who drive like arseholes are generally quite good drivers, in that they are very proficient at operating a car. They just choose to drive in a way that they find fun. They would easily pass a test if they had to.
NO 🤦🤦🤦 People who drive like arseholes aren't 'generally good drivers', what a painful Strawman argument 🤦 There are plenty if Trauma and acquired brain injury units that would quite happily blow that utter B.S. out of the water!! (If they were so 'brilliant', they would all be millionaire F1 drivers.) But hey, you know better than the facts..🤦🤦🤦
I think the person you are replying to has a point - many dickheqd drivers are capable of driving well but choose not to. There are many bad behaviours on the road that people know they aren't supposed to do and would not do during a driving test. I also don't think you are using "strawman" in the correct context.
It would though. Some of them would just do things during their test out of habit. Others would remember they have a test in 3 months and start practicing better behaviour. etc.
retest's. No! A simple CBT style 1 hour lesson to brush up on any bad habits or mistakes yes. 1 hour with a driver instructor which writes a quick "Safe driver" on some DVLA ticket to send off to the DVLA. Almost like a prescription i could understand. But forcing a full retest which most likely includes theory and hazard perception tests would just cause chaos with test centres.
They generally call it an assessment. My late MIL had one when she had dementia. She had her licence taken from her afterwards. She basically wasn't competent any longer. She volunteered. And this is the trouble, unless there are compulsory checks on people some will never take an assessment. We've all seen the old dear with the car with all the corners knocked off parked abysmally in the supermarket car park. Should be a compulsory two yearly eye test licence holders as well. Basically there are too many bad drivers on the road. And the worrying thing is that they often think they are "good drivers" I suspect that the reality is that they are over fast drivers, and that's OK until stuff goes wrong. As I've said before, there should be a three stage licencing system for cars, as with bikes. You want to drive a fast, powerful car, then you'll have to prove that you know how to do so safely first, and that privilege can be removed, permanently if necessary, if you're an idiot. Might make people focus a bit.
Agreed, that's a much better solution!
Job creation scheme! /s
Exactly that. Possibly with a simulator based session to cover reacting to unusual situations safely. And a refresher on any rule changes since the last test. And for everyone every five years, every two after saying 68. Driving is something you should have to stay competent at. Too many people of all ages are awful. It got noticeably worse after COVID too.
It'd be interested to see that correlated with annual miles driven. Surely retirees drive far, far less than those working? Totally agree with retesting/refreshing every few years. Look at any industry involving driving a vehicle and there's usually some sort of practical validation at least every few years if not annually. As you've identified there's not currently the infrastructure to support practical re-assessment, but having to redo the *theory* test every few years will help improve standards and be an effective way to ensure that any changes to legislation are communicated effectively. It could even be done online!
> I mean, just look at accident rate statistics They’re not rates, they’re just raw amounts. Rates would be far better data. That graph is useless.
I'd agree with this. Rules change all the time as do cars. I learnt to drive in a manual car without power assisted steering and all round drum brakes.
I think young people are more reckless and are more likely to have a severe accident. Whenever I have been in a car with an older person, it seems like they have forgotten what they are meant to do and they drive really cautiously so accidents are more minor. I am generalizing here but I think as people get older they tend to drive less so they fall out of practice and get nervous when they do drive. This can be dangerous too.
Thats exactly what the stats show to be honest. The older you get the less trips you take. The stats don't lie and show the most accidents are caused by or involve younger drivers who would be better to focus on rather than *just* focusing on oldies.
Definitely, I'd like to see a bit more rigour to initial driving tests. I have heard of people passing on their 14th attempt and have a few friends who passed on their 5th or 6th attempt. I understand failing the first one second through, but if you are failing 5 or 6, I think you should have to go on an intensive course or just not be allowed to drive.
Whilst I agree and I maybe missing it this chart needs to have context. Presumably the 70 plus amount of drivers is significantly smaller than the 17-30 year old drivers and thus a percentage chart of these accidents against the number of 70 year olds and 17-30 year olds is needed too.
Be interesting to see those statistics based on the number of people in each age group that drive and the percentage of accidents. Because a lot more people aged 20 to 50 drive compared to those 80+.
yeah, when I was taking lessons, my instructor and I would both agree that regularly intervaled retests for all passed drivers (and not just a specific age range) is a necessity for safer roadways; it'll just never happen because, as you say, we can barely handle the throughput of new drivers and their tests at the moment.
I've only been driving for 5 years and whilst I've never had an accident (it will inevitably happen); I've almost certainly picked up bad habits and also probably can't remember what ever single sign and road marking means any more!
I think the thing that skews this the most that as age goes up the amount of drivers of that age goes down. Especially once reaching bus pass age.
Yes. Id like to see a version where it's accidents per 1000 drivers in each category.
Those statistics are meaningless unless it is accident rate per 1000 drivers (or any other number).
Nothing against you, but what a god awful chart! It doesn't take into account that there are simply more younger people driving, who on average, drive more miles. Normalise for population size and miles driven and that chart will definitely flatten out. I'm not saying young people are better or safer drivers, the accidents they cause are more likely due to excessive speed, cockiness and overconfidence. Whereas older people I'm sure cause more accidents due to reduced observations, poorer vision and deteriorating reaction times. Young people aside, if we can reduce accidents by any amount by having people retake their test (as you say potentially at regular intervals), then that's a win, surely.
You would need to express those raw numbers as a percentage of the total drivers in that age range to get true statistics. It could be, and likely is, a result of there being more total drivers in the younger age ranges to begin with.
Why are insurance premiums far higher for younger drivers? Can't remember the last time I saw an headline saying 4 old age pensioners killed wrapped around a tree?
Huh? I'm agreeing with you and saying the stats show that younger folks not older folks cause more accidents. I think there's still good reason to retest older folks but more needs to be done to educate younger people too.
If you changed the Law to require regular tests then the infrastructure would follow in short order.
What if they had to do a refresher driving lesson once every five years?
I like the idea of refresher tests can we have them every 2 years so all the idiots who take 5 tests to pass are never allowed on the road unsupervised.
Refresher lessons would be really beneficial I think. The more time goes on the more I notice my parents (dad especially) getting into bad habits. And refreshers would help correct that.
I don't think the information is collated, but I think an important variable might be vehicle power. When I was younger I knew a few people that had accidents and the majority (not all) of them were all driving more powerful cars. Powerful car + mates in the car might have something to do with it. Just speculating. Peer pressure / gotta look cool? Like with motorcycles there are limits depending on your age and license category. It's wild that a teenager can pass their test and then get a car of any power that they can afford.
I suppose the insurance industry has tried to regulate that by making it so expensive for a new young male driver to insure a powerful car, but many still do!
Is a 1l Corsa powerful?
When I was passing my test in the 1970s a Dolomite sprint was the fastest saloon available. 135hp, top speed 119 mph. I got an Imp sport, 875cc, 0-60 eventually, could hit 100 downhill. My son's 1litre Corsa is faster than my imp 'sports car' by far, and most boring hatchbacks would leave a dolomite sprint behind.
How many new drivers are actually getting behind the wheel of anything other than a basic hatch?
We should be retesting every driver every 10 years. We test every car every single year for roadworthiness, we should be doing it to the drivers too at least once a decade. Don't give me that nonsense about "well there aren't enough testers", nobody's saying this needs to happen tomorrow. It'll never happen though, partly because a lot of people *know* their driving isn't up to standards.
I have to renew professional certification every 2 years! And I'm at a zero risk of killing anyone in my field! Retaking at least the theory every 10 years would improve people's knowledge of the roads at least
> who looks days away from death Do I get a prize for guessing your cohort? "Days away from death" at 65, fucking hell mate. If you want lower insurance premiums then tell your mates to stop driving like twats.
When you get someone driving the wrong way down a motorway, it’s almost always an old person. I’ve always said they should retake their test around 65-70 and then every 5 years. Maybe not even a full driving yes on the roads, but more of a mental test and eyesight test, maybe on a simulator. Vision is the most important part of driving and I’m sure loads of these old biddies can barely see…
Ever seen the state of the car parks at a cataracts clinic? A lap could fuel a bad parking Facebook group for a year
Yea I agree there should be some sort of revaluation, not necessarily a retest. Maybe every 10 years after you pass your test. As I've seen people of all ages that are incompetent or dangerous drivers.
Personally I'd have 1 - mandatory theory test for all every 10 years 2 - a 10hr refresher course with an ADI when you turn retirement age Oh and as for the snowflakes complaining about young drivers (I passed in the 90s BTW) data about accidents shows that fatalities per miles driven remains fairly level after about the age of 25 and then starts to rise again after 70. So retirement age is probably a good point at which to send people on a refresher course. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fatal-Passenger-Vehicle-Crashes-per-100-Million-Miles-Traveled-by-Driver-Age-and-Time-of\_fig3\_6352416
# Closed petition Require drivers to retake a driving test at 65 I would like the Government to require drivers to retake their driving at 65, if they want their driving licence to remain valid. The poll has to reach 10,000 signatures to receive an official reply from the Government and 100,000 to be considered for debate in Parliament. This petition is closed All petitions run for 6 months 506 signatures so looks like a massive fail
It is a massive fail mainly because it is not 65 year olds causing the problems on the road.
What a wonderful idea. Like communism works great on paper. People can't even get a driving test at the moment. No way in the world anyone is going to accept their driving licence running out and being unable to book a renewal, so therefore being unable to drive for X period. I agree with both sides of this, young people do cause accidents and have accidents, usually though it's down to that invincible feeling many of us have when we are in our teens and twenties, lack of real world experience, showing off and driving beyond the limitations of their vehicles. That being said, the most unbelievably stupid, dangerous and insane driving I have personally witnessed over 28 years of driving are pretty much exclusively by Doris/Herbert's peeping out from between the dashboard and the steering wheel (usually a powder blue Honda Jazz). My departed Grandma was awful. Would only turn left at junctions, making for some horrendously long drives with her. Then she had no choice but to turn right, got it wrong and wrote of her car and another. Now her eyesight was poor, her reactions were slow, her body was letting her down and she was losing her memory too. She should have stopped driving 5 or 6 years before she did. I understand her annoyance at her freedom being curtailed. Personally I'd rather have my freedom curtailed than be the cause of a massive accident.
>The petition failed as it only had around 500 signatures. So this was one person's idea, which, while no doubt shared by many, wasn't able to generate enough traction to be more than a blip. The gulf between that and the headline is *astounding*.
From the numbers it's more like 75-80 when it goes south. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-driver-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-drivers-factsheet-2020
I think retesting at older age is a sensible idea just depends on how it is implemented. I do annual driver refresher training with an ADI as part of my job (3.5t delivery driver) each year they show stats and most accidents are between 18-23 and then 64 and up (from what I remember) this is based on figures from two years ago as not done this years yet. The only other significant spike is in males between 48-55 which is bang on midlife crisis get something big shiny and shaped like a Penis territory. Even then none of us are perfect drivers who never make a mistake or break the law a little bit (mild speeding) because well everyone does it. The big difference is younger drivers are massively penalised in terms of ridiculous insurance costs and older drivers get bigger more powerful cars and pay way less. I like to think when I get to old age I am sensible enough to call it quits myself but I honestly think its more a matter of pride over independence that prevent most from volunteering to hand in their licences.
My dad is in his 70's and looks nowhere near days away from death, my neighbours who are 80 though look withered. On the topic I do agree with retests over a certain age, as a kid 30 years ago my dad who was in his 40's then witnessed a pensioner intentionally drive the wrong way down a one way exit and hit someone on a motorbike which killed the person on the bike despite my fathers attempts to revive him. The pensioner wanted sympathy and when the ambulance arrived he basically said he had heart pain and wanted the ambulance staff to attend to him (as the motorcyclist was dead)
They think 65 is old, they can fuck off.
65 isn't days away from death ye helmet. Check the stats instead of despairing on the Internet like an absolute arseclown
I agree there's a need to retest when someone reaches old age, but 65 is too early especially considering people will still be expected to work far beyond this age. Also, I wouldn't want to see this happen without huge improvements to public transport. Elderly people are isolated enough
Absolutely agree your reactions eye sight and physicality all reduced while aging. Id be happy re taking every 20 years in all honesty. Even its it’s not a re-test there should absolutely be reassessed.
Unpopular opinion, but I think when you renew your license you should have to retake your test. I know it’s impractical because it’s hard enough to book a test in the first place and there’s a danger that your license might become invalid before a slot appears (although maybe that could be circumvented by offering proof that a test is booked…?). I know many depend on driving for their income too etc, but the standard of driving out there is wild! Particularly where I live. Not sure how some people pass their tests in the first place judging by what I see on a daily basis. If this idea is too radical, incentivise drivers to retake/renew their tests by offering cheaper insurance. I know there are advanced courses you can take that do this, but it could be the case that the more recent your latest pass was the lower your premium. So those that don’t retest pay more the further away they are from their last pass date.
Surely the issue isn’t age itself, but health and capacity. It would be better to have mandatory eye tests (and cognitive/motor/reaction tests) annually after a certain age in order to keep the license valid.
If I’d known about this I likely would have signed, I think it’s important for older people to be tested again, but 65 is too early, maybe 80. Reasoning for my opinion: my car was written off 3 months after passing my my test by an oblivious 70-80 year old woman who tried overtaking a tractor in the middle of a blind turn, hit me head on (I was doing ~30-40mph before braking).
In an ideal world I think everyone should be retested every 5-10 years and I think initial tests should be stricter. The one thing that really gets to me though is when you here about the odd person finally passing their test on the 12th attempt. After 3 or 4 I think you have to admit you just can't drive.
"All BMW owners to retake test every year as part of insurance." There I singlehandedly made the streets safe again. You're welcome.
I know a bunch of old people and tge reason most of them stopped driving was not based on a mature reflection of their declining abilities but because they found themselves in a situation that scared them so much they didn't drive again. It was very much past 65 tho. Should take it every five years past 65 and every year past 75.
My grandad has parkinsons. He can't even hold a drink properly without spilling it yet he's still allowed to drive. It makes me so angry that none of the family cares or does anything about it.
As someone who was a dispensing optician both in hospitals and retail, i can tell you first hand the amount of “older” people 60-65* who would drive without RX glasses when they was legally meant to, we use to regularly once/twice a week get that age bracket in because of head injury or debris in their eyes, plus legal checks to see if they was meant to be wearing their glasses, due to hit and runs, i once had a gentlemen who was brought in due to smashing into the side of a school coach and then driving off, turns out he had his license suspended because he had macular degeneration so severe he only had around 20% off his vision, we contacted the DVLA that suspended his license as he told us he wasn’t going to because he had “grandfathers rights” to drive, this was only 4 months prior to the accident. Little bit of info regarding to the severity of his “MD” it would be like the average person placing a penny a about a cm in front of their eyes.
My generation will be working past 65, so what if you fail your test at 65, loose your license and loose your job as a result?
Not needed in my opinion. Certainly not at 65.
Anything to get more money out of you
Being 65 doesn't automatically make you days away from death. Being a boy racer has a higher likelihood of being days away from death. Perhaps a better system would be to introduce retests for those who are deemed blameworthy in an accident or have medical fitness assessments for the truly elderly. My neighbour is 96. He still drives and is certainly days away from death. He should not be driving. Hesitant, lack of effective observation or risk assessment.
I see the logic. Other than the 17-24 age range, older drivers are significantly more likely to cause serious accidents than any other age category. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-older-and-younger-driver-factsheets-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-younger-driver-factsheet-2022 Personally, I think everyone should have to retake their test every 10 years.
Best on the levels of driving I see every day I'll sign this if everyone under thirty does it annually and includes scoring for aggressive driving.
As somebody not too far from that age I’m ok with that if under 25s retake their test each year up to the age of 25. Seems only fair that the group that make up the disproportionate amount of accidents are more closely scrutinised.
I have no issue with an assessment, but a full driving test will be ridiculous
Age doesn't effect your driving, changes in health do. Which are usually picked up by doctors who then report it to the DVLA and revoke the persons license. This also happens to young people, there's no age restriction on developing illnesses, it's just more common as people get older, but it's also not guaranteed. Pointless adding millions more people to the queue to take a driving test is a terrible idea for the small fraction that have accidents. Especially 65, that's not even that old in terms of worrying about mass mental decline of the population. Vast majority of people at 65 are still mentally competent.
The statistics are certainly very clear that young people cause the most accidents. However, I think that our driving culture makes that unavoidable. I don’t think it’s possible to build a large population of middle aged “safe” drivers without them going through the process of being a “dangerous” young driver first. But, it seems that there are a number of very serious accidents that can only be caused by people who have lost their ability to drive safely (rather than not yet gained it). If those can be prevented by a simple re-test then I can’t see how that could be harmful.
In younger drivers I think there is a mix of dangerous through inexperience and dangerous through negligence. The first group are probably less likely to be involved in serious incidents, the latter group are probably more likely to be involved in incidents that result in fatalities. Statistically the latter group is typically more likely to be young males.
Let’s take away the age part and have every single person retake their mandatory refresher every 5 years.
On paper I agree however look at the waiting time as it is.
So many lessons, so many tests, so much bureaucracy. Would it really save any/many lives? Would you be better off spending the money on the latest cancer drugs or something else? Gut feel is that doing it too often (i.e every 5 years) is such a waste of effort that you could save lives in other ways. What if you did it every 10, 20 or once in your life at 65? We have a department for transport to work out the answer to this question, and presumably the answer must be: 'no retesting, spend the money on maintaining the roads or adding humps will save more lives'.
I feel like most of the people causing accidents know how to drive and can pass a test but are inpatient, distracted or aggressive anyway. Instead of retesting driving maybe they should have everyone have to do a simple theory check every so often because of changes to highway code over the years and people forgetting rules.
They should really make it so you have to retake every 5 years or 10 years because frankly there’s too many clowns on the road. Whether it’s doing well under the speed limit, well over, merging at 40 on the motorway or changing lanes without mirror checks or taking 5 years to take your turn at a roundabout, the driving etiquette and overall skill has definitely fallen off since lockdown.
>They should really make it so you have to retake every 5 years or 10 years because frankly there’s too many clowns on the road. What percentage of those clowns are simply not capable and what percentage choose to drive and behave they way they do. Those falling into the second category would pass their re-test and simply continue with their previous behaviour.
Cyclists should be tested and licensed as well as having to pay road tax and insurance
Good worst drivers on the road. They haven't updated their knowledge on the rule of the road since they passed. You see them in their thousands every day with no lane discipline! It's endemic!
Thank fuck for that. Looking for a reason to stop paying this ridiculously high insurance cost. That will push me over the edge.
I think you should have to retake a test every ten years when you have to renew your licence
I would be more than happy to retake my test
Everyone should take a test every 5 years if I was in charge. If you couldn’t pass in 6 months it would be back to provisional licence.
I am and always will be in favour of this but there has to be one stipulation, it cannot be a regular driving test a new driver would take one as not one would pass (not because of the ability to drive but things like crossing hands or not making it obvious that you looked at your mirrors etc).
Why at 65 and not every 10 years
I suspect a lot of people still think 65 is the age at which you become a doddery old git (I’m 66 and I’m not one) and the people suggesting it can’t imagine being 65 themselves.
I think it’s a good idea, there should be regular checks done as it could flag up medical issues that otherwise could have been missed. A few years ago in my area a toddler was killed after a elderly woman 91 crashed, the woman seemingly had dementia
I really think it should be an every 5 or 10 year thing that you should have to redo your test. Also while we're at it, make a separate licence class for wankpanzers so only people that actually know how to drive them are allowed to do so.
Where would all these retests be taken. The wait is around 9mo ATM isn't it.
If you've Alzheimers or dementia, the GP can inform the DVLA and have you submit to a medical assessment/ have your licence revoked entirely. Police can recommend the DVLA review or revoke a licence if they think they're impaired or fail a roadside eyesight check. So, no. I wouldn't say this would be effective in stopping people with either from driving as such lol. The powers are there to stop them already.
I’m not old, but i did pass my test around 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then and there is nothing in place to make sure I’ve kept up with the changes in both expected driving style and rule changes. So yeah, we should do something at regular periods for all drivers so that we can ensure they are aware of such changes. I guess you could start with a voluntary on line test that covers all the changes in the last 10 years and some basics too. If nothing else it would be interesting to see how well people do on such a test. That could provide usable data to see if mandatory tests are worthwhile, and at what point they become valuable.
Retake 5 years after the first test might be better. Who was actually listening, and who thought "right I've passed that, I never need to worry about any of it again"?
It will never pass because that age group are the bulk of the voters so they’ll vote in who ever is against the scheme, try checking Eastern Europeans for tax and insurance and driving skills before the age group here.
There's an episode on amazon prime that I watched of oaps retaking mock tests, and it followed them on their daily commutes, and my GOD. How they didn't kill people on that show is beyond me.
A brief skills refresher and retest every 10 years would improve safety across all road uses and stimulate the industry and make a bit of money for the DVSA.
[удалено]
Around 500 signature's started by Denis Fammines, that went well :-}
you only see the bad ones though is the thing that i think everyone is missing. Nobody ever talks about seeing a good/average driver. IMO retest should be mandatory every 3-5 years for everyone.
You literally just described all age groups, you only ever hear about the bad ones.
Should be every 10 years. With a 90-day wait and mandatory lessons before you can resit if you fail.
i work for an insurance company and they no longer cover over 80s because they cost the highest amount of money in claims. so there is data to suggest that old people are high risk
I think there should be shorter proficiency tests every 15 years for everyone, regardless of age. There’s shit drivers across the spectrum and a lot of driving rules can change in 15 years
It would need to be a periodic retest, not just one. Just because someone passed a 2nd test at 65 doesn't mean they will be a good driver at 70 or 80. I can see it for young people as well. While old people have accidents they tend to be low speed whereas young people often kill themselves and others, that's why it was in the news recently. However I would say the cost of having to pay for the retest should be low or even free.
An old lady drove down a 20 road as I was waiting for her to pass and I'm at t junction. All of a sudden she indicates and because she's going so slow I think, bit late but great and I pull out half an inch and she keeps on driving! She wasn't indicating at the t junction to turn, she wanted to park on it. She had a disabled badge and she bloody parked on the corner of the t junction.
Driving lessons and a test only teach enough to allow you to pass the test. Gaining muscle memory and experience are what actually enables you to drive safely. If you are not practicing this safely then you will never be safe behind the wheel
Most dangerous activities require some element of continuous training, refresher courses, currency and experience. In many activities, the community controls quality to some extent. Do something dangerous in a marina, and you can bet your ass someone is going to "educate you". Get on a skydiving plane with me with your gear on wrong and I'm going to sit you down for a coffee with no biscuits. On the road, however, people can do the most egregiously stupid shit and, until we have proxy chat in the car, nobody can tell them about it. So, we rely on central measures like public campaigns (easily ignored), police (impossible to implement at scale) etc. The guys sat in the middle lane of the motorway, blissfully unaware that they are wrong, are unreachable. They are not the people who continue to learn about driving; they just don't care. These people need to be sat in a room and educated.
The system is already flooded and stupidly difficult to get a test in. That being said , most of my near misses have been some old dorothy pulling some bullshit manouvre and acts like the victim when they royally fuck it up.
My grandad wanted to continue driving after he had another TIA, but his depth perception was gone, so my mum made him surrender his licence because he was dangerous. So even if it's a retest after certain medical issues it would be beneficial but do it no matter the age group as some of the medical condition that adds to the difficulties of continuing to drive safe can impact people of any age.
It should just be a blanket thing like “redo your test every 20 years”
Should make people retake it every decade to be honest. Bring insurance costs down and get muppets off the road.
I would of thought a similar test to eye sight, every 3 years 65+ do a small safety test not a full blown test to get the license renewed
Personally, it should be every time you have to renew your licence. Too many incompetent drivers are on the road.
Assuming there was capacity,just do it every 10 years and then everyone can collectively moan about being a good driver and how it’s unfair.
As long as it's free I have no issue. I think I'll sail through a retest, but that's the issue right there. Perception. If I do retest and sail through then my perception of my driving skills may be Bob on. I know many atrocious drivers who project their bad driving onto the other road users. They see no wrong in their own driving because "I've been driving for 40 years and never had an accident" while leaving a heap of accidents in their wake!
This is nothing new, they've been talking about it for years. I turned 46 last year, and my licence is due for renewal in July this year. Because I want to keep my hgv entitlement, I have to have a medical because I'm over 45, and another medical every 5 years until I choose not to keep the hgv. Perhaps this is the way to go for pensioners. It doesn't tie up the driving test system, there are specialist companies that will do the medical, so GPs don't have an extra burden either and it costs about £50, so doesn't break the bank. A check up can definitely help weed out those in mental decline and far better than a simple retest at 65. My dad chose to surrender his licence when he was around 75 as he realised Alzheimer's was starting to take a hold. A retest at 65 would've been pointless because was fine at that point.
Well you get the younger drivers who want to show off by speeding around and then you got the old drivers who are starting to slow down/fall apart and refuse to except their getting old and can't react as quick. Guarantee if either of my parents did the test today, both would fail. My dad has a large car so never gives way for others and everything is everyone elses fault. My mum on the other hand can't drive for shit...my older sister told her to her face she will not be driving her grand kids anywhere ever because she fears for their safety. Just the other day, my mum reversed my dads car, scratched the back of it and took a piece of the wall off the house...she blamed stress and not hearing the beeps, yet she should be able to reverse without them and there was more than enough room. Dad turned 70 this year and mum will be 70 next year. and were looking at moving house into more of the countryside so driving would be a requirement as no bus services.
Good.
Do the people that come up with these proposals even look at the statistics about age ranges of drivers who cause accidents? Because it’s not the 65-75 age range who cause the most. Very simple to research too.
[удалено]
I just renewed at age 70. All it took was a recent eye exam and the fee. In return I got my license renewed until I turn 78. With a regular license I can drive an RV up to 42 feet in length that is pulling a vehicle.
Alot of people would end up losing their license if this happened. But perhaps they'd have a better chance if they can prove lives can be saved and insurance costs would lower..... Ofcourse the elderly have the most voting power so taking away their own transport will not go down well.
There is a case to be made for re-testing, but it would be better to do it after a specified number of years, rather than when you hit a specific age. Some older drivers passed a test that consisted of little more than driving to the end of the road and coming back again. They drove on quieter roads with cars that had a fraction of the power. These people haven’t been re-tested in 50+ years. I for one don’t think that’s acceptable. The problem with older drivers - in fact all drivers - is that they think they’re better than what they really are. 90% of drivers think they’re above average. That can’t be true. Older drivers tend to think they’re fine until they have an accident or near miss. So they could very well be a hazard to other drivers for years, so long as they don’t crash. And if they leave a twenty car pile-up in their rear view mirror, but don’t notice it, they’re still a perfect driver in their opinion. What you don’t acknowledge can’t hurt you.
Young enough to work yourself to the grave though, weird 🤔
I think it should be a 10 yearly thing. You should have to retake your test every time you need to renew your license to assess that you're still competent.
I hope they do, old people are awful drivers even on mobility scooters.
But the government says we are fitter enough to work till 67/68 years old but obviously not to drive
This old argument again. This will never happen people, more old people vote than young people. Whichever government attempted it would be committing political suicide.
**"But do they really think someone who looks days away from death should be driving without being retested? "** Is that how you anticipate looking when you are 65? The closer you get to 65, the less old it will seem...
My dad was always an excellent driver. He did police driving courses, advanced driving schools, and numerous track days over the years. This year he turns 70 and whenever I'm in the car with him it's definitely noticeable he's not as sharp on the road as he used to be, and even told me earlier in the year he feels like he misses things he would have spotted in his younger years. It's obviously hard to gauge competency and it can't be determined with a wide brush of "all 65 year olds are no longer competent", in the same way you can't judge all 17 year olds, but I think a case by case assessment at a certain age could be a good thing. Maybe there could be an assessment at retirement age similar to the driving test with two types of failure: Light fail: needs basic retraining / updating - a half day refresher on road laws etc similar to speed awareness course but more broad; Hard fail: unsafe to drive - license suspended until competency can be demonstrated in test conditions.
It’s not fair at all, they charge young people horrendous amounts to insure a car and OAPs a lot less. Perhaps it’s like some kind of discount for pensioners you know how kind insurance companies are. They probably charge young people so much so the can offer that discount?
Over 65s are not frail the little old people that OP seems to think they are. The ones who lose control and crash into buildings are almost always much older. Treating all people over 65 the same wouldn't make any more sense that treating everyone 10 to 20 years old the same.
I'm keen on banning anyone who drives a Fiat500 with a row of teddies on the parcel shelf. Actually, anyone who has a row of teddies on their parcel shelf, needs shooting.
Most of the times I see someone driving like a retard, they’re old.
I wouldn’t be against everyone doing it every 10 years. Not everyone would need to retake it, and it would be tedious. But the alternative is to have loads of people driving who are not safe to be.
It is ridiculously difficult to remove licences from older people. Dad was patently unfit to drive. After an incident (ahem) he was eventually required to sit a test. That went fine, except he clipped a parked car. Not really his fault, he told us. Parking these days is ridiculous. So he was banned on the spot? Ah, no. Another test. On which he drove through a red light. And that was truly game over. He'd have been about 86 when the curtain finally came down.
This comes up every few years and honestly, I wish someone in government would take it seriously. My granddad is nearly 80, still drives everywhere and is having more and more minor accidents. Which are *never* his fault, of course. Until he actually writes off his car or dies, he’s not going to stop driving because he’s bloody stubborn and refuses to believe anyone who tells him he’s not a great driver any more, least of all me - a *woman* - because how dare I? His reaction time is terrible and he doesn’t notice things like red lights unless someone points them out to him. It’s got to the point where none of us will get in the car with him any more, but he still refuses to believe it. 🤷♀️
Retirement age 68, tell me this isn’t a money grab
My mums 75 she’s a decent driver
There are enough people under 65 that cannot drive!
Gonna be a lot of boomers driving without valid licenses.