Elderly Drivers

[kadee]

ohhhhh ok then. Well thank you rwc1, your insight is very helpful and appreciated by all I'm sure.

[CDMS]

rwc1 said, "Just reading your comments sugest to me that you were drunk and mad when you said that you want elderly and infact all drivers to submit to a driving test every year".
Maybe rwc1 needs to learn about reading. Kadee stated in her first post that only drivers over 70 maybe should be tested annually. In her post on 2/10 she only suggested regular testing for everyone, not specifically every 12 months. After reading all posts there is not one that stated that ALL drivers should be tested every 12 months.

[Danny_b]

I agree with more regular testing. 2 years after getting my licence, I had my eyes tested, and was told I was below the legal limit for driving. 12 months before renewal, I lost (misplaced) my licence and had to get a new one made with a new photo. As my photo was not that old when the renewal came up, a new one got sent to me.

It's now been 15 years that I've been aware I'm below the legal eyesight requirements for driving, yet I've never even had a vision test at the VicRoads office.


Regular retesting (or the fear of it) would make safer drivers, as a lot of people would take more of an interest in keeping up to date.

[shandy]

More regular testing? what, eye test or driving test? anyone who think that more driving tests will make a better drivers are just kidding themselves, so you'll be doing a 30 minutes test, you'll be of course at your best behaviour, you'll pass and then get back in your car and drive as you've done in the past 20 or 30 years with all the bad habits . it's like 120 hours on Ls will make a better drivers then 50 hours, yea right!!!

[computerflyer]

danny_b > It's now been 15 years that I've been aware I'm below the legal eyesight requirements for driving,

So why don't you do the right thing and turn in your license, and how many crashes have you caused in those 15 years?

[Danny_b]

It's OK, I'm fine with glasses (didn't explain too well in my last post). If I was below the limit with them, I'd hand in my licence. Well I say that now, while I'm young enough to walk reasonable distances, and make sense of public transport timetables, but not sure about when I'm 70.

The optometrist that tested my eyes once said if I get asked at all, I should admit I need glasses, but I shouldn't go out of my way and contact Vicroads to let them know I need them. Once the condition is on my licence, if I ever drive without glasses, I could be fined for doing so.

And Shandy, regular testing would make some difference. It would make people more aware of road rules, and more likely to keep up to date, as at least they would be closely watched once. It would certainly expose people who have a massive understanding of the road rules who were tested under a completely different regime. My father prides himself on the fact his driving test was to drive the policeman to the pub one night. He had to give dad his licence so dad could drive home. That's just what was done in small country towns in the 40's & 50's.

I just don't know if the cost to do it all would be worth the benefit. Probably not. But I definitely think someone who's had 120 hours of experience in a variety of conditions makes a far better driver than someone who's only had 50. There's other variables, but all those things being equal, the more experience the better.

[shandy]

Danny_b, from your post you sound a very reasonable man, but I don't agree with you, 10, 50 0r 150 hours will not make any difference, it's all common sense. a friend of mine got his license in the 70s, he just walked into the police station the sergeant asked him, what are you here for? he said to get a driving license, so he gave him one over the counter, that friend later became a highway patrol officer in the police force, so, does he need a driving test? do you think the RTA examiner is a better driver then my friend in this example? or that he or she knows the road rules better? Yes there are many bad drivers out there and they will continue to be bad even after they pass the driving test.

[Danny_b]

Shandy, I definitely disagree with you on the experience thing. You're saying that if you got into a car with someone that only had 10 hours of driving experience and controlling a car, that you wouldn't wouldn't feel more worries, or wouldn't be able to tell the difference to someone who'd had 50 hours, as long as they both had common sense?

As someone taught two people how to drive, the difference between 10 and 30 hours is HUGE. Even the difference between 50 and 100 hours is quite significant. The difference between 100 and 120 horus is far less than 10-30, but it's still there. As the hours increase, the confidence builds.

I taught my two sisters how to drive, who were like chalk and cheese. Prior to getting their licence, one had about 50-60 hours, the other had driven over 5000km's. The difference in their driving was huge.

In the 5 years after getting a licence, the less experienced one had 3 at fault accidents, and 4 that were someone elses fault. The more experienced one hasn't had an accident at all with better skills to avoid situations, despite driving similar distances in the same city. Since then one is still accident free, and the other has chalked up 3 more that were her own fault.

Getting a licence in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and even the 70's was completely different to now. There were far fewer cars on the road, and far far far fewer distractions to drivers.

I'm not saying that someone's occupation makes them a better driver, I'm saying someone with substantial experience is more likely to be a better driver than someone with negligible experience.

[computerflyer]

I support Danny_b. There is a minimum that could vary from person to person for basic competency, but more experience makes a huge difference in driving competence.

Just driving down the road is not the issue - it is driving in heavy traffic, being defensive against yahoos, reacting to the unexpected, 'driving ahead' without losing situational awareness, etc, etc.

[vp1959]

I must agree that there needs to be some increased monitoring of drivers' health issues where some conditions would impair one's ability to drive, such as epilepsy and other neurological conditions.

What amazes me is the lack of making motorists aware of new road rules and changing of existing rules. Are we required to have ESP ability?

Admittedly, the States' transport departments usually place full page advertisements in major newspapers advising of new rules and changes. However, does every motorist read the newspapers, and more specifically, would they read such advertisements? My answer is a resounding NO.

So how do we get around this lack of information dissemination? Obviously, mailing out details of such changes to each individual motorist but with that comes a cost - quite a big cost!

[CDMS]

My Dad still holds a licence, but only for photo ID. He hasn't driven for last 10 years, but he was a terrible driver anyway. He said to me once "I'm a good driver, I've got 40 years experience." I told him he only had one years experience repeated 40 times. Didn't go down very well, but it was a fact, he was a terrible driver.

[computerflyer]

vp1959 > What amazes me is the lack of making motorists aware of new road rules and changing of existing rules. Are we required to have ESP ability?

One of the reasons the government is happy doing little is their opportunity to raise revenue through increased fines. Always remember that in the eyes of the law ignorance is no defence.

[petainnt]

I know in the NT that they are (doctor's that is) are required to notify the MVR. With Epilepsy the driver has to visit the neauroligist (brain doctor - I can't spell) each year and take a written letter to the MVR to renew. They are not allowed to renew for more than a year at a time and it is at the discretion of the licensing officer. If they crash during that time they can lose their license regardless of how the condition is managed for up to 5 years even if in that time they remain seizure free.

Not sure about medical conditions with age but surely if a doctor notes it in their files and tells a person to surrender and they don't you could imagine the court case if anyone suffered from any accident.

Maybe simulated driving booths at MVR's is the way to go - it could be calculated on a computer - to help with the back log - 3 driving situations that measure mostly response would be a good indicator if someone needed an on road driving test (this would be for the elderly not the playstation rally driving 17 year old)

[alassinsane]

My uncle is 62 and recently had his doctor advise the department of transport that he shouldn't be driving, and his licence has since been suspended.

[Platycat]

Driving is an attitude and people's true self shows in their driving. You can be a good driver at a great age and if you have thoughts for others you will NOT drive if you know you shouldn't. It is a privilege to hold a licence. I have seen some older folk driving very well and some younger ones driving in a stupid and dangerous way