Stricter eye tests drivers > 70

[briansnail]

There are suggestions that older drivers over 70 should have compulsory eye tests.At that age the test is free.Over 50 eye cataracts can develop.Daylight vision is ok but night risky.Trouble slow changes in sight look can look normal when your elderly.

The AA wants to block the changes.Why? a test would prove safe or unsafe.It is one more strict safety feature and might mean insurance comes down (if you pass).

Its us CYCLISTS in front of speeding cars in poor visibility.On the road at night.
***************************************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

[Jdsk]

Have you got a source for that view from the AA?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Barrowman]

Just had a quick Google, can't find anything to support the assertion , however, the AA's Website advises 2 yearly checks across the board

https://www.theaa.com/driving-school/dr ... nd-driving

[Nearholmer]

Eyesight is, of course, very important, but only part of the issue, and unless any test is very different from the present one it won’t trap what I perceive to be important for all of us when driving, and for older drivers especially, the cognition question.

[Carlton green]

There are suggestions that older drivers over 70 should have compulsory eye tests.At that age the test is free.Over 50 eye cataracts can develop.Daylight vision is ok but night risky.Trouble slow changes in sight look can look normal when your elderly.

The AA wants to block the changes.Why? a test would prove safe or unsafe.It is one more strict safety feature and might mean insurance comes down (if you pass).

Its us CYCLISTS in front of speeding cars in poor visibility.On the road at night.
***************************************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

An interesting thought. Have you any evidence that older drivers pose a disproportionate hazard on the roads?

As I grow older I see old folk taking themselves off of the road when they feel no longer up to coping with modern day traffic and restricting where and when they travel. ie. being responsible for their actions. As I grow older I see ageism and actually that’s not OK. I’m also of the view that if licences are only for three years after 70 then that’s ageism too, and it’s not OK.

Who are the people who have accidents, in my own straw poll of experience they’re generally the young and inexperienced…

[Jdsk]

A YouGov survey and the opinion of the President of the AA. He's in favour of "showing evidence of regular eye tests", with some nuances and other comments.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/western- ... 9605093649

Jonathan

[cycle tramp]

There are suggestions that older drivers over 70 should have compulsory eye tests.At that age the test is free.Over 50 eye cataracts can develop.Daylight vision is ok but night risky.Trouble slow changes in sight look can look normal when your elderly.

The AA wants to block the changes.Why? a test would prove safe or unsafe.It is one more strict safety feature and might mean insurance comes down (if you pass).

Its us CYCLISTS in front of speeding cars in poor visibility.On the road at night.
***************************************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

An interesting thought. Have you any evidence that older drivers pose a disproportionate hazard on the roads?

As I grow older I see old folk taking themselves off of the road when they feel no longer up to coping with modern day traffic and restricting where and when they travel. ie. being responsible for their actions. As I grow older I see ageism and actually that’s not OK. I’m also of the view that if licences are only for three years after 70 then that’s ageism too, and it’s not OK.

Who are the people who have accidents, in my own straw poll of experience they’re generally the young and inexperienced…

Anecdotally... the last road collision call I took from the police, was due to an older driver who, instead of pressing the brake pedal, hit the accelerator, killing the occupier of the mobility scooter, as they used a light control crossing, to cross in front of them.... the mobility scooter, and occupant got crushed as vehicle pushed them into a wall. Considering it happened in town I suspect anyone who witnessed it probably was in need of a bit of therapy....

Personally, I'd like to see everyone who drives face a mandatory eyesight and reaction test, regardless of ages, perhaps one every 3 to 5 years - you could make it part of the driving licence renewal process. Ideally, I think every driver should be retested after 7 to 10 years... if you're good, you won't have any fear about asked to sit a retest. If you're not going, should you be on the road?

[Jdsk]

...
Have you any evidence that older drivers pose a disproportionate hazard on the roads?
...

That's from the 2020 factsheet:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... asualties-

The 2022 factsheets:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... heets-2022

Jonathan

[TrevA]

Are there any stats available about the numbers of people who develop cataracts in old age? If the number is low, then this does seem to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I’m not against compulsory eye tests, but question whether they should just be for the over 70’s.

[Jdsk]

Are there any stats available about the numbers of people who develop cataracts in old age?
...

https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/cataract ... revalence/

71% in people aged over 85 years.
59% in people aged 80–84 years.
42% in people aged 75–79 years.
24% in people aged 70–74 years.
16% in people aged 65–69 years.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
I’m not against compulsory eye tests, but question whether they should just be for the over 70’s.

Me too.

With what we currently know I'd go for:
• Initial qualification to drive
• After a problem such as collision or conviction
• At 70 y and then every 2 y
• On request.

Eyesight is, of course, very important, but only part of the issue, and unless any test is very different from the present one it won’t trap what I perceive to be important for all of us when driving, and for older drivers especially, the cognition question.

Agreed, but I don't even know what would be a cost-effective test for vision, let alone perception/cognition/awareness.

And I'd include personality/aptitude testing after problems such as collision or conviction.

All as part of moving driving on public roads towards being an explicit conditional privilege.

Jonathan

[a.twiddler]

Same thing resurfaces from somewhere every so often. More evidence of "the war against motorists" to some minds. Then the question comes up of "who pays" for the re testing, a sure vote loser for whichever government brings it in, and it quietly gets forgotten. Same sort of thing as road tax and insurance for cyclists, or bring back national service, either a reaction to a headline, or a distraction from what the government is currently failing at.

It might be seen as ageism for over 70s to have to renew their licences every three years but at least that is free. Having been a glasses wearer since childhood, not having regular eye tests is something I find hard to understand, though after over a decade of belt tightening, for many people it's not on their priority list. Young drivers have to jump through hoops until they have some driving experience, and as for wanting to learn to ride a motorcycle...

A couple of weeks ago I attended a family gathering which included a couple who live in London. It was interesting to see that they'd dispensed with car ownership as parking is so difficult and expensive, while public transport is relatively accessible and cheap. If only the same could be said for the rest of the country, it might be easier to separate people from the obsession with car ownership that prevails.
Mind you, they don't have kids, which can make a difference.

[Nearholmer]

If you want to know about risks in any field, ask an insurance actuary.

Here’s the fruit of what they know about motoring risks by age:

Given that the oldest age group drive a lot fewer miles than most, it suggests that they are more likely per mile driven to need to make a claim than anyone else, the archetypal mad youngster included.

[Jdsk]

If you want to know about risks in any field, ask an insurance actuary.

Here’s the fruit of what they know about motoring risks by age:

IMG_3072.jpeg

Generally excellent advice. But in this case it includes value of car, risk of theft etc.

Collision statistics upthread, including adjustment for distance.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Same thing resurfaces from somewhere every so often. More evidence of "the war against motorists" to some minds. Then the question comes up of "who pays" for the re testing, a sure vote loser for whichever government brings it in, and it quietly gets forgotten.
...

Yes, it's very important to consider who pays in discussing feasible changes.

That's easier for one of my suggested categories than the others...

And it will generally get easier if we move to a perception that driving on public roads should be a conditional privilege.

Jonathan