Elderly Drivers.

TheQuietFella

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1230/841845-fatal-crash-cork/

Is it time now to put the elderly people off the road?

Is there an age limit on when you cannot drive?

I appreciate that living in rural communities can be difficult but incidents

such as the ones in the above link are not the first and won't be the last!

ITV2

Not all elderly drivers are bad drivers, I see more and more younger drivers making dreadful manoeuvres on the roads. It takes all sort to drive a car.

TheQuietFella

ITV2 wrote: »

Not all elderly drivers are bad drivers, I see more and more younger drivers making dreadful manoeuvres on the roads. It takes all sort to drive a car.

I agree but that's not my point!

endacl

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I agree but that's not my point!

Poster responded to the point you appeared to make. So, what is your point?

Nomis21

Driving licences should be taken from any licensed driver who is admitted to medical care for any disability/illness which makes him permanently unfit to drive.

Other jurisdictions such as UK do this .

magicbastarder

OP - the rules regarding licences and age are easy to find.

Also, can you quantify how big an issue this is before removing all elderly people from the road? One swallow does not make a summer.

Big Bag of Chips

Hundreds of people die on the roads every year. Most of them an awful lot younger than those two drivers. Why would you decide that old people are the biggest danger on the road?

According to the RSA, last year the higest number of deaths were in the 16-25 age group. Is it time now to put the under 25s off the road? And out of 166 deaths, 130 were male. Is it time to put men off the roads? Time to put men under 25 off the roads?

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

meeeeh

They are not the biggest danger, I think that would be ridiculous to claim. However there is no denying that some who are not in a state to drive are still driving. Usually they have the common sense to stick to the local roads. But it is the same as for everything, if you are not in condition to drive you shouldn't be driving and I think after certain age yearly renewals should be mandatory.

Isambard

this is ridiculously Ageist. Without commenting on the incidents quoted as no details are yet known of what happened, many drivers in their 80s are likely to be fitter than someone younger who may have diabetes , or a heart problem or indeed a drink/drugs problem.

Each driver needs to be looked at on his/her merits and not because of their age.

I agree that medical testing needs to be looked at, but this needs to be across the board.

looksee

Currently when applying for a license there is a detailed list of conditions that you have to sign that you do or do not have, and if you have any of them you have to get a doctor's letter to say it will not affect your ability to drive.

After 70 you can only apply for a 3 year or 1 year license and medical confirmation of fitness to drive is required at renewal.

I had an accident within 2 weeks of passing my driving test. Since then I have not had an accident in 48 years. I am not sure whether I qualify as 'elderly' but I think I am still a perfectly competent driver.

There are some dodgy elderly drivers out there, but there are some dodgy younger drivers too, it is not a wholesale classification.

BrianD3

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Hundreds of people die on the roads every year. Most of them an awful lot younger than those two drivers. Why would you decide that old people are the biggest danger on the road?

Well based on stats from the RSA "review of fatal collisions - age profile"
2014: there were more road fatalities among the 66+ age group than in any other age group. 16-25 was the next worst age group.
2015: 16-25 was the worst age group followed by 66+.
2016 to July: 66+ was the worst age group followed by 26-35.

These are just the raw figures. I would say that if you were to measure fatalities per mile driven, old people would have a high rate as they would tend to drive relatively low mileage, can avail of free travel on public transport which has a very low fatality rate etc.

Old people make up a high proportion of pedestrian fatalities and also cause a high proportion of wrong way motorway collisions which are often fatal.

The medical test process that elderly people have to go through when renewing their licence is flawed, I don't know if it the test itself is too easy to pass or if GPs are bending the rules/giving people the benefit of the doubt as they are reluctant to "put them off the road".

magicbastarder

BrianD3 wrote: »

Well based on stats from the RSA "review of fatal collisions - age profile"
2014: there were more road fatalities among the 66+ age group than in any other age group. 16-25 was the next worst age group.
2015: 16-25 was the worst age group followed by 66+.
2016 to July: 66+ was the worst age group followed by 16-25.

66+ can cover a much wider age range than any of the other options - especially as the next biggest range, 0-15, will clearly exclude drivers.

it's also worth bearing in mind that people in the oldest age bracket are possibly more likely to die in an accident that would not kill someone in their 30s; so all other things being equal (including driver skill) this might push that figure upwards.

spurious

BrianD3 wrote:

The medical test process that elderly people have to go through when renewing their licence is flawed, I don't know if it the test itself is too easy to pass or if GPs are bending the rules/giving people the benefit of the doubt as they are reluctant to "put them off the road".

Absolutely. I have a friend whose mother, now deceased, who was to all intents and purposes blind as a bat, partly due to not taking her diabetes medication, but merrily drove to cards at night. A fatal 'elderly person involved' incident happened close to where they lived and I was convinced it was her, but it wasn't.

When her car packed up, a collective sigh of relief ensued, until her dopey son bought her a new car, I mean wtf? Just how stupid are some people.

boardsuser1

Cork has now had 3 elderly drivers driving against the flow of traffic resulting in crashes in the last 3 years.

All were fatal I believe.

Also a 17 year old is seriously injured this morning as a result of an accident a few miles from the fatality in Cork yesterday.

looksee

'Old people make up a high proportion of pedestrian fatalities' is this elderly pedestrians being killed by other drivers, or elderly drivers killing pedestrians?

looksee

I do think that asking an elderly persons's gp to decide whether they are fit to drive is a bit unreasonable. The gp would lose a lot of trust from a vulnerable person if they put them off the road.

Maybe the job should be taken off gps and an independent doctor should see the elderly person, and recommend a short re-test if necessary.

At the same time, anyone (any age) involved in a traffic incident where they are at fault should be fined an amount to cover the cost of a re-test, and they should be obliged to take a re-test to show they are competent to drive.

rushfan

Isambard wrote:

this is ridiculously Ageist. Without commenting on the incidents quoted as no details are yet known of what happened, many drivers in their 80s are likely to be fitter than someone younger who may have diabetes , or a heart problem or indeed a drink/drugs problem.

Or glued to their mobile phone.

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

I do think that asking an elderly persons's gp to decide whether they are fit to drive is a bit unreasonable. The gp would lose a lot of trust from a vulnerable person if they put them off the road.

exactly; it would drive business towards GPs known to turn a blind eye to people not fit to drive.

Big Bag of Chips

Also, at what age does someone become "elderly"? 66+ is a very broad age band. My father is 70 and drives HGVs and PSVs for a living. Still. To England. His employer seems quite happy to employ him.

[Edit: about 3 years ago my father was involved in a "motorway incident" where a pedestrian lost their life. The police obviously took a statement from my dad and questioned him as to the particulars but made it absolutely clear that he was not under arrest, or under caution or in anyway to blame for the incident. But that his eye witness statement would obviously help them. I'm sure most people can come to a conclusion why a pedestrian was on the bank of a motorway waiting for a HGV to pass. But that could have been recorded as 'pedestrian killed by 67 year old driver'....]


I'd be interested to see a break down in figures for fatalities caused by drivers over 80, compared to fatalities caused by drivers under 25.

Hotblack Desiato

This issue is only going to get worse due to demographics increasing the elderly population, and isolation in those wonderful one-off McMansions they slaved their whole life to pay off meaning they have to drive to do anything

A doctor as a professional bound by a strong code of ethics should realise that they are doing an unfit patient no favours by signing them off to drive and put their life at risk, they should also realise their duty to protect the public from unfit drivers. However it appears that the moral fibre of too many doctors is lacking.

Any driver of any age involved in an injury accident where medical issues are at play should be investigated and any doctor who signed them off as fit to drive should face a misconduct hearing.

Either get tough, or take the whole process away from family doctors and onto independent medical assessors, your GP can sign you off as fit to drive for 3 years no questions asked but DSP will not take a GP's word for it for patients claiming disability, they use their own independent examiners except for short duration claims.

Preferably do both. Unfortunately this is one of those issues that TDs and especially rural TDs will get their backs up over and there are no votes in protecting the public interest.

TheAnalyst_

I've only ever seen one person drive the wrong way down the motorway and they were well into their 70s if not older.

nhunter100

TheAnalyst_ wrote:

I've only ever seen one person drive the wrong way down the motorway and they were well into their 70s if not older.

I did my truck test 8 years ago. As I was exiting the bypass using the one way slip road, a young female driver drove past me heading down the slip road on to the bypass, . Both the tester and myself were stunned. Stupidity/inability to read signs is not confined to the elderly.

Thepoet85

Would it be reasonable or practical to have anyone who was involved in an accident to re sit their test?

It might be a logistical nightmare, but could certainly help ensure drivers are more cautious on the road, and might reduce the amount of claims that are being pursued.

Haven't thought it through much, but would it work?

TheQuietFella

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

I've only ever seen one person drive the wrong way down the motorway and they were well into their 70s if not older.

The man who died on the M8 yesterday did exactly that!

Turtle_

Youth and arrogance are a danger. But young drivers get better over time. Old drivers get worse. And you absolutely have to factor in accidents per mile driven. Fatalities aren't the extent of it either, I often see elderly people bumping off parked cars, or driving well below the speed limit out in the middle of the road. Sure, they aren't killing anyone, but that's not good enough.

The population of elderly people is increasing. It's not okay to just ignore the problem. It's a very difficult thing to ask family to put their loved one off the road.

The license renewal process should involve a medical with an RSA doctor, preferably a geriatrician. Can the person hear acceptably well? Can they see well enough? Do a mini mental state exam. What's their physical strength like? Have a driving simulator, at a random point have the screen flash "STOP". Do they stop quickly enough? Some of these things can be fixed quite easily, but even other things could lead to early detection of dementia, or loss of strength. That would improve quality of life for the person.

TheQuietFella

What I'm trying to say is there are age limits as to when you can drive,
age limits as to drive certain categories of vehicle and even limits to driving
under the influence. Should there then be a limit as to an age where you are
not allowed drive given the circumstances of yesterdays deaths.

Allinall

KC161 wrote: »

Cork has now had 3 elderly drivers driving against the flow of traffic resulting in crashes in the last 3 years.

All were fatal I believe.

Also a 17 year old is seriously injured this morning as a result of an accident a few miles from the fatality in Cork yesterday.

By following the OPs utterly wired and flawed logic we should now ban driving in Cork.

TheQuietFella

Allinall wrote: »

By following the OPs utterly wired and flawed logic we should now ban driving in Cork.

Given the size of Cork that's probably all that were detected!

boardsuser1

Allinall wrote: »

By following the OPs utterly wired and flawed logic we should now ban driving in Cork.

:rolleyes:

Isambard

also to consider is that many of the people who die over 66 may well have been passengers, and are more likely to die of their injuries than a younger fitter person. Statistics need qualifying

Also, can we please stop referring to people over 66 as "old". It's not the case anymore and it's ageist to be referring to them thus.

Mrs OBumble

TheQuietFella wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is there are age limits as to when you can drive,
age limits as to drive certain categories of vehicle and even limits to driving
under the influence. Should there then be a limit as to an age where you are
not allowed drive given the circumstances of yesterdays deaths.

No.

I have an aunt who's now (a good few years later) 90, and is in better shape than my mother was at 70.

An arbitrary age limit would have put one off the road far too soon, and the other far too late.

All elderly people should have care planning in place well before it's needed, which involves giving thought to how they will get around once they cannot drive any more, so that the person knows that they have options. I know more than a few elderly people who "put themselves off the road" before their doctors did - because they had the option.

patrickbrophy18

Within each class of road user (i.e. motorist, cyclist and pedestrian), there are bound to be a lot of bad eggs irrespective of age. It's not just 66+ or under 25s because it will then turn into an old versus young (and vice versa) debate.

patrickbrophy18

On a related note, it reminds too much of the bull**** from the article below:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/driving-curfew-proposed-to-save-young-mens-lives-26560955.html

Big Bag of Chips

It's the other side of the coin to what the OP is suggesting! If he thinks (all) old people should be taken off the road, then surely he'd have to agree that (all) young people should have a curfew and a mileage limit. As year after year the most deaths are recorded in the 16-25 and the 66+ age groups.

patrickbrophy18

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

It's the other side of the coin to what the OP is suggesting! If he thinks (all) old people should be taken off the road, then surely he'd have to agree that (all) young people should have a curfew and a mileage limit. As year after year the most deaths are recorded in the 16-25 and the 66+ age groups.

Oh yeah, I completely get it.

But, on a broader note, arguments like this add to the big list of double standards which plague society in general.

Hotblack Desiato

Both of you are missing the point. Undeniably there are medical issues which commonly arise with age and our system doesn't seem robust enough to ensure that drivers who develop these issues are not permitted to drive while medically unfit.

This has nothing to do with young drivers, an entirely separate issue. Incidentally there are people of all ages who are banned from driving on medical grounds, but if you were never allowed a licence you haven't got one to lose. It's the people who did have one who then become medically unfit at an older age we're talking about. It's often not easy for them or their families but we can't leave it up to them to decide whether they're fit to drive. We don't leave it up to drinkers to decide when they're fit to drive or not.

patrickbrophy18

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Both of you are missing the point. Undeniably there are medical issues which commonly arise with age and our system doesn't seem robust enough to ensure that drivers who develop these issues are not permitted to drive while medically unfit.

This has nothing to do with young drivers, an entirely separate issue. Incidentally there are people of all ages who are banned from driving on medical grounds, but if you were never allowed a licence you haven't got one to lose. It's the people who did have one who then become medically unfit at an older age we're talking about. It's often not easy for them or their families but we can't leave it up to them to decide whether they're fit to drive. We don't leave it up to drinkers to decide when they're fit to drive or not.

I completely agree with you on this standing.

So, should the title of the thread not be changed from "Elderly Drivers" to "Drivers Who Are Medically Impaired"?

By this, I mean that from a medical stand-point, if ones ability to control a car is impaired from conditions (aside from the obvious alcohol and drug related impairments), should their suitability for driving be re-examined?

Big Bag of Chips

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Our system doesn't seem robust enough to ensure that drivers who develop these issues are not permitted to drive while medically unfit.

I'll admit to being neither a medical expert nor a licensing expert, but there are conditions that develop that ban people from driving for a period of time until it can be proven they are fit to drive again. Epilepsy for instance. If a person has a fit, with no history of epilepsy, they are automatically off the road for 12 months. It happened a friend of mine (42) recently. I don't know the particulars, but I know he never had epilepsy, and he is now off the road for 12 months following 1 fit.

"Being old" isn't a diagnosis, and it's not enough of a reason to take a person off the road. I would even say a GP can't necessarily diagnose a person enough to sign them off road and that it would need a specific diagnosis from a relevant specialist. With maybe follow ups done with the GP in cooperation with the specialist at licence renewal time. But I imagine that already happens for various conditions. And if someone is unfit to drive for whatever reasons their GP is made aware of it. Epilepsy being one.

But where do you start, or stop? Someone with a heart condition? High cholesterol? Someone who suffers from migraines?

patrickbrophy18

It is for this very reason that I think self-driving cars should go mainstream as soon as the kinks of the AI controlling it are ironed out. That way, anyone with driving impairments can be accommodated.

Hotblack Desiato

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

So, should the title of the thread not be changed from "Elderly Drivers" to "Drivers Who Are Medically Impaired"?

Probably. But things like epilepsy and type 1 diabetes are rare enough among people who've already got to driving age without having them. Lots of drivers who were otherwise reasonably healthy hit their 70s and 80s and start sufferering from failing vision, slowing reactions, cognitive issues etc. and we need a system to properly determine whether they're safe to drive on the public roads or not. These conditions are progressive and subtle and the person concerned may insist they're fine when they're not, because they stand to lose the independence they've had for decades. It's sad for them but we need to protect the wider public too.

Hotblack Desiato

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It is for this very reason that I think self-driving cars should go mainstream as soon as the kinks of the AI controlling it are ironed out. That way, anyone with driving impairments can be accommodated.

That'd solve the Healy-Rae type "need to be able to drive home on the back roads after a few pints" issue too...

Del.Monte

BrianD3 wrote: »

Well based on stats from the RSA "review of fatal collisions - age profile"
2014: there were more road fatalities among the 66+ age group than in any other age group. 16-25 was the next worst age group.
2015: 16-25 was the worst age group followed by 66+.
2016 to July: 66+ was the worst age group followed by 26-35.

These are just the raw figures. I would say that if you were to measure fatalities per mile driven, old people would have a high rate as they would tend to drive relatively low mileage, can avail of free travel on public transport which has a very low fatality rate etc.

Old people make up a high proportion of pedestrian fatalities and also cause a high proportion of wrong way motorway collisions which are often fatal.

The medical test process that elderly people have to go through when renewing their licence is flawed, I don't know if it the test itself is too easy to pass or if GPs are bending the rules/giving people the benefit of the doubt as they are reluctant to "put them off the road".

+1

A family friend whose reactions were so slow as to be almost lethal on several occasions that I was in his car, but he routinely was given the nod by his doctor so not to put him off the road.

That said, I think all drivers should have to do some sort of test every so often just as any pilot, train driver etc. have to. as between those who never sat a test - especially the thousands who were given full licences if they had two provisional ones - there are many who just shouldn't be on the road at all.

magicbastarder

i keep saying this - the best way to clean up driver behaviour (apart from enforcement) is to confiscate the car, every time penalty points are earned, for a number of days equal to the tally the driver is currently on.

e.g. a driver earning three points, bringing him to six, has his car impounded for six days.
no fines - just points and the impound.

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

i keep saying this - the best way to clean up driver behaviour (apart from enforcement) is to confiscate the car, every time penalty points are earned, for a number of days equal to the tally the driver is currently on.

e.g. a driver earning three points, bringing him to six, has his car impounded for six days.
no fines - just points and the impound.

- and if he is banned, just crush his car. Sounds good to me.

Seriously, eyesight tests at every licence renewal is a good start and would be simple to implement. There are already restrictions on elderly drivers (over 70 years of age) and stricter ones on even older drivers (over 80 years of age). If they are not working because doctors are not carrying out their duties that is a different matter.

They have made the driving test more stringent, but that only affects those who have yet to take the test and does nothing for those who have been driving for 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. Many major features of modern driving did not exist here 50 years ago for the rural driver - motorways, traffic lights, roundabouts. Even breathalyzers are recent in those terms.

Eyesight deteriorates significantly at between forty years and fifty years of age for most people. [Loss of accommodation causing the need for reading glasses is common]

fly_agaric

One of accidents in news piece linked in the first post is a single car accident that harmed no one else. The other one has 2 vehicles involved and it doesn't say which vehicle "caused" the accident [it is quite recent; also may be wrong but news articles don't generally give that information about car accidents].

RTE have made the "elderly" link themselves in their header for the article.

Can poster show us his other evidence that these "elderly" people (and their decrepitude) is the cause of a disproportionate number of road traffic accidents in Ireland, or even better, the cause of of a disproportionate number of road traffic accident deaths?

Hotblack Desiato

So you don't think a septugenarian doing a u-turn at a toll plaza and going back up the motorway the wrong way is anything to do with age?

Figures already provided in the thread.

fly_agaric

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you don't think a septugenarian doing a u-turn at a toll plaza and going back up the motorway the wrong way is anything to do with age?

Figures already provided in the thread.

Fair enough I didn't read the whole thread; that extra information about the 2 vehicle accident was not contained in the opening post or the linked news article.

On a reread, I don't see actual "figures" posted so will post this link (haven't had a chance to look at it yet).

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/pssn/rsa/Database/RSA/Road%20Safety%20Statistics/Road%20Safety%20Statistics.asp

edit: Have had a quick look. This one http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=roa21&ProductID=DB_RSA&PLanguage=0
gives sex and age of car drivers involved in road traffic accidents 2006-2012; 10% are <= 20 [lowest 5 age bands], almost half are 25-44 year olds [middle 2 age bands]; 16 % are 55+ [3 upper age bands (incl pensioners >= 65; 8 %] but this may just be a reflection of who is doing most driving etc, and so has more chance to be involved in a car accident??

Finally, my experience of older people who drive would be that they are usually very careful/deliberate and quite good once they stick to the areas/roads, levels of traffic etc that they know and are comfortable with...if they have to leave their "comfort zones", (driving at night if not used to that, driving routes they don't know etc) they can get into trouble. I don't think some kind of blanket policy forcing people off the road once they hit a certain age defined as "elderly" is necessary or fair.

Sam Russell

fly_agaric wrote: »

Fair enough I didn't read the whole thread; that extra information about the 2 vehicle accident was not contained in the opening post or the linked news article.

On a reread, I don't see actual "figures" posted so will post this link (haven't had a chance to look at it yet).

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/pssn/rsa/Database/RSA/Road%20Safety%20Statistics/Road%20Safety%20Statistics.asp

edit: This one http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?maintable=roa21&ProductID=DB_RSA&PLanguage=0
gives sex and age of car drivers involved in road traffic accidents 2006-2012; 10% are <= 20 [lowest 5 age bands], almost half are 25-44 year olds [middle 2 age bands]; 16 % are 55+ [3 upper age bands (incl pensioners >= 65; 8 %] but this may just be a reflection of who is doing most driving etc, and so has more chance to be involved in a car accident??

Looking at the statistics from the RSA quoted above, 21% of drivers killed in road accidents were over 65%. No figures are given for blame as to cause of accidents, so I doubt if any conclusions can be drawn from these figures.

There are several pointers that are unfavourable to 'elderly' drivers.

1. The cohort of drivers that never passed a test is over represented in that group.

2. The proportion of people with poor eyesight might be over represented in this group.

3. Medical conditions, such as stroke, are likely to be more prevalent in this group.

This group would tend to be more cautious which would mitigate all the other factors.

Overall, I think that 'elderly' drivers are not that bad as to require special treatment regarding licences. Being convicted of drink/driving or speeding or dangerous driving would be a greater predictor of requiring special treatment.

fly_agaric

Sam Russell wrote: »

Looking at the statistics from the RSA quoted above, 21% of drivers killed in road accidents were over 65

Just a note on this (we might not be looking at same data) but, when I sum the years for the second link (car drivers involved in traffic accidents 2006-12) I get 677 drivers of cars killed; with 113 of them 65 or older giving ~ 17 %.

As seen with the "rest" of the drivers involved in car accidents (i.e. injured, unharmed, or the overall group which I gave the statistic of ~ 8 % aged 65 or over) they are still not the "worst" age group if I can be so judgemental. That is always 25-34 year olds.

That category (drivers killed in car accidents) is actually one where they stand out somewhat, as do a group that often draw attention (21-24 year olds; 17.7 %). They make up about 7-8 % in the "injured" and "unharmed" driver groups.

cbreeze

The under 25s and the over 65s pay much more for their insurance reflecting the level of risk involved. People with medical conditions should be assessed by a doctor certainly, but perhaps not their own GP, for an independent view.

An accident waiting to happen: a couple of months ago I saw a young male driver on his mobile phone while he turned the corner at the junction where I was waiting to cross the road. That's not unusual as you see people of all ages doing this all the time, but what caught my astonished eyes was the fact that not only was he on the phone, he was using the steering wheel as a rest for a form he was filling in! Then he dropped the pen into the footwell of the car and the last I saw of him as he drove away was him holding the steering wheel with one hand while he rummaged around trying to retrieve the pen.

Sam Russell

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just a note on this (we might not be looking at same data) but, when I sum the years for the second link (car drivers involved in traffic accidents 2006-12) I get 677 drivers of cars killed; with 113 of them 65 or older giving ~ 17 %.

As seen with the "rest" of the drivers involved in car accidents (i.e. injured, unharmed, or the overall group which I gave the statistic of ~ 8 % aged 65 or over) they are still not the "worst" age group if I can be so judgemental. That is always 25-34 year olds.

That category (drivers killed in car accidents) is actually one where they stand out somewhat, as do a group that often draw attention (21-24 year olds; 17.7 %). They make up about 7-8 % in the "injured" and "unharmed" driver groups.

What percentage of drivers are over 65? Are the fatalities of this group significantly out of kilter vs the rest? And are they likely to be the cause of these fatalities?