Over 70 off the road
article in news this morning
70 and over should be off the road 
younger families fear they are ticking time bombs
Comments
-
IMO 70 is a bit too much on the lowside but could definitely agree for those aged 85+
0 -
The Government are, apparently, thinking of increasing the age of when you need to change your licence from 70 to 75 which in my view would be a good thing. I think if we were such a liability our insurance costs would be sky high but the reverse seems
to be the case and I think that is the acid test. There is lots of actual evidence out there that other age groups are poorer drivers than many oldies!!!David
0 -
The insurance companies know what they are doing and what to charge for a particular age group based on the data they have from privious years not only on accident rates but the amount of damage and cost involved. As DK says premiums are lower for older
drivers, of course that could mean lower payout costs due to lower milage or fewer older drivers past a certain age?0 -
Perhaps I am biased as I will be 70 in a couple of weeks time but is 70 really considered old these days? People will be working to almost that age soon so if they can hold a job down they should be OK as drivers. I appreciate that is a very generalised point because a bad younger driver will no doubt turn into a bad older driver!!! I do wonder if those younger drivers that complain about us oldies are the ones in my view that drive aggressively and don't understand why us oldies still apply the rules we learnt whilst learning to drive all those years ago?
David
0 -
I think 75 years would be a more realistic age to consider. I'm appalled by the driving standard of some young people but, similarly, there are many older people who, I think should hand in their licences.
I hope I'll know and be wise enough to give up when I think I'm unsafe but, I hope, not for a while yet.
0 -
We were reflecting just the other day about how many parents of friends had gone into serious decline and death shortly after they stopped driving. I can't claim cause and effect, but I do believe that is what happens.
0 -
Personally, the worse drivers are actually the younger set, and I don't mean the late teens/early 20s, and those that drive high powered vehicles, they are very agressive drivers and just plough through narrow roads. They don't even give way when obstructions
are on their side of the road.0 -
I recently had a close friend knocked off his motorcycle and kill by a 74yr old drive who pulled out in front of him.
It also seems that most of the fatalities involving head on collisions round us involve 70+ drivers.
I think accidents involving younger drivers is an attitude problem and older drivers a decline in faculties.
0 -
75.. its a bit young to worry about driving? Many of are still Rocking n Rolling..drinking and winking..?at that age and more.
Its all relative..some are "old" at 30,whilst many of us like to age disgracefully..
0 -
I realise that this is an emotive subject,
but any such legislation, if necessary, should be introduced on a purely factual basis and not on, just think of a number. It would be very interesting to see, after the evidence has been collected and correlated, just which age group, if any, should
be singled out for such treatment.I think, as has been suggested, the Insurance Companies may already know the answer.
0 -
found some stats from a commons commitee report from 2012 which makes interesting reading for those trying to castigate the older age groups without facts so here goes, Note these are taken from official government report not plucked out of thin air they
concern road casualties in 2012 and are as followsOf the 6,029 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2012: 8% were aged 17 to 19;
25% were aged 20 to 29; 42% were aged 30 to 59; 9% were aged 60 to 69; and 13% were over 70.Make of it what you will but i thought some actual figures may bring some parity to the debate.
0 -
I was watching a programme about age related driving ,and one thing that did stand out,, was that the older you are the more likly in any accident ,road or otherwise,to suffer seriose or fatal injuries as the body cannot absorb or recover from them
0 -
found some stats from a commons commitee report from 2012 which makes interesting reading for those trying to castigate the older age groups without facts so here goes, Note these are taken from official government report not plucked out of thin air they
concern road casualties in 2012 and are as followsOf the 6,029 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2012: 8% were aged 17 to 19;
25% were aged 20 to 29; 42% were aged 30 to 59; 9% were aged 60 to 69; and 13% were over 70.Make of it what you will but i thought some actual figures may bring some parity to the debate.
Please do not think I am trying to rubbish your attempt to put forward some facts and figures, as you are only passing on the information that others have put together. However I note that one age group, 17-19yrs represent only a 2 year span whereas another
30-59yrs represent a 29 year span and the others are grouped with similar disparity. Add to this, no data indicating the numbers of drivers in each group or the fact that it relates only to the those killed or seriously injured and not any causal factors and
does not include all of the other accidents, not considered serious by whatever criteria has been appiled.Then, I can as you say, ‘Make of it what I will’.
0 -
If you are still fit and healthy carry on.
0 -
If you are still fit and healthy carry on.
..and that's part if the problem. It's 'you' that declares yourself fit & well .... whether you are or not
Whilst others are not even required to lie or otherwise about their fitness drive, it's left up to thier own scruples !!
0 -
found some stats from a commons commitee report from 2012 which makes interesting reading for those trying to castigate the older age groups without facts so here goes, Note these are taken from official government report not plucked out of thin air they
concern road casualties in 2012 and are as followsOf the 6,029 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2012: 8% were aged 17 to 19;
25% were aged 20 to 29; 42% were aged 30 to 59; 9% were aged 60 to 69; and 13% were over 70.Make of it what you will but i thought some actual figures may bring some parity to the debate.
Please do not think I am trying to rubbish your attempt to put forward some facts and figures, as you are only passing on the information that others have put together. However I note that one age group, 17-19yrs represent only a 2 year span whereas another
30-59yrs represent a 29 year span and the others are grouped with similar disparity. Add to this, no data indicating the numbers of drivers in each group or the fact that it relates only to the those killed or seriously injured and not any causal factors and
does not include all of the other accidents, not considered serious by whatever criteria has been appiled.Then, I can as you say, ‘Make of it what I will’.
Thats the age group of the fatalities and it doesn't say what age the driver of the other vehicle was. Thats the problem with statistics
0 -
found some stats from a commons commitee report from 2012 which makes interesting reading for those trying to castigate the older age groups without facts so here goes, Note these are taken from official government report not plucked out of thin air they concern road casualties in 2012 and are as follows
Of the 6,029 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2012: 8% were aged 17 to 19; 25% were aged 20 to 29; 42% were aged 30 to 59; 9% were aged 60 to 69; and 13% were over 70.
Make of it what you will but i thought some actual figures may bring some parity to the debate.
Please do not think I am trying to rubbish your attempt to put forward some facts and figures, as you are only passing on the information that others have put together. However I note that one age group, 17-19yrs represent only a 2 year span whereas another 30-59yrs represent a 29 year span and the others are grouped with similar disparity. Add to this, no data indicating the numbers of drivers in each group or the fact that it relates only to the those killed or seriously injured and not any causal factors and does not include all of the other accidents, not considered serious by whatever criteria has been appiled.
Then, I can as you say, ‘Make of it what I will’.
Thats the age group of the fatalities and it doesn't say what age the driver of the other vehicle was. Thats the problem with statistics
Write your comments here...Maybe there was no other driver Oneput. The younger inexperienced drivers are very well represented in the "No other Vehicle Involved" daily news reports..
K
0 -
found some stats from a commons commitee report from 2012 which makes interesting reading for those trying to castigate the older age groups without facts so here goes, Note these are taken from official government report not plucked out of thin air they
concern road casualties in 2012 and are as followsOf the 6,029 car drivers killed or seriously injured in 2012: 8% were aged 17 to 19;
25% were aged 20 to 29; 42% were aged 30 to 59; 9% were aged 60 to 69; and 13% were over 70.Make of it what you will but i thought some actual figures may bring some parity to the debate.
Please do not think I am trying to rubbish your attempt to put forward some facts and figures, as you are only passing on the information that others have put together. However I note that one age group, 17-19yrs represent only a 2 year span whereas another
30-59yrs represent a 29 year span and the others are grouped with similar disparity. Add to this, no data indicating the numbers of drivers in each group or the fact that it relates only to the those killed or seriously injured and not any causal factors and
does not include all of the other accidents, not considered serious by whatever criteria has been appiled.Then, I can as you say, ‘Make of it what I will’.
Thats the age group of the fatalities and it doesn't say what age the driver of the other vehicle was. Thats the problem with statistics
Write your comments here...Maybe there was no other driver Oneput. The younger inexperienced drivers are very well represented in the "No other Vehicle Involved" daily news reports..
K
Perhaps K but I can't see over 6000 fatalities caused without another vehicle driver involved.
0 -
Not to generalise but recently I have witnessed two serious cases of dangerous overtaking, and no it wasn't me being overtaken. In both cases it was young women drivers, I have noticed lately that women, especially young women do tend to take chances. It
often seems that we talk about young men being reckless behind the wheel but, in my experience women are equally as bad. Before everyone posts I am a female poster.0 -
Several of my elderly relatives drove into their late eighties when physical frailty and slower mental reactions took over. At that point their cars were used for very short runs to the shops, medical centre etc. Then they became dependent on the help and
goodwill of others. Losing independence is a major turning point in people's lives and marks the start of declining years. Seventy years of age is nowhere near this point for most people.0 -
The trouble is that some perceive themselves as having the skills of Lewis Hamilton when they might be more accurately compared to Andy Hamilton.
0 -
DEBSC We have a driving instructor lives near us ,and the one thing he says about new drivers is that young women seem to be the most agressive once they get a bit of "confidence" he seems to think that girls/young women need to "prove something",
0 -
Pretty sure there must be a huge variation in the age at which it is sensible for people to stop driving, but generally speaking we are all living longer and staying fit longer.
I will be 74 soon, my Dad died at 64 (stroke), my Mum at 98, hopefully I take after my Mum.
I keep active, do a lot of work around the house, have many interests, exercise my brain on a regular basis. Why would anyone think I should have been stopped driving 4 years ago?
My children would be horrified at the suggestion!
0
