Sir Stirling Moss calls for elderly drivers to retake tests

[gmb45]

The 79-year-old believes motorists should be re-evaluated when they reach 70, 75 and 80 to ensure they are safe and capable drivers.

His comments came as Department of Transport figures suggested that accidents involving older people are likely to be caused by driver error and slower reaction times.

Sir Stirling said: "I do think older drivers should be re-evaluated because first of all, a lot of the road signs are changing and the road ethics are changing and the way the roads are formed. There are many things one has to keep up with.

"I think it would be a good idea to have a new evaluation when we reach 70, then 75, 80."

At present, a driving licence must be renewed at 70 and every three years after that.

This is a form-filling process and elderly motorists do not have to retake a test.

There are currently three million licence holders over the age of 70, and that number is projected to reach 4.5 million by 2014.

The call for closer scrutiny of elderly drivers is backed by Madeline Selwyn, from Aberdare, Rhondda Cynon Taf, whose 19-year-old son Jonathan was killed in March 2002 when his car was hit by a 69-year-old travelling the wrong way down the M4.

She said: "I think we've all seen people getting out of cars and they can hardly stand or walk. You think, 'should they be driving?' It can be frightening sometimes."

[westkill]

that must include zap and gmb then

[forntida]

Stirling Moss must be reading my posts.

[andy4]

totally agree with sir stirling moss
there an absolute nuisance on the road i'd ban them full stop when they reach 70 & make them use their bus passes

[Lainie]

as a relatively new driver i think people should need to resit their test every 10 yrs. you need a new passport every 10 yrs to leave the country but a test at 17 means you can drive for life. sorry thats just wrong. they are targeting new drivers like me by making it harder and harder to pass the test but its not new drivers they should be looking at. realistically how many of you could pass your test inc theory and hazard perception today?


there are so so many bad drivers out there. i did make a thread about indicators but that went down like a lead balloon.its amazing the amount of cars out there whose indicators dont work. maybe its me and im supposed to be a mind reader

[chroma]

You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

I could pass all three although the hazard perception needs to be improved, it doesnt tell you when you've clicked so i wind up spamming the hell out of the clicks.

The theory questions are a little wierd too, how many learners know anything about insurance and such? When i first started taking lessons i knew sod all about insurance, it wasnt till after i passed and went and bought a car i had to deal with that.

The practical would be my hardest part, ive picked up so many bad habbits over the years that the guy testing me might have a coronary. At 3am i can make it almost all the way around a local roundabout @ 60ood mph using only the handbrake (not something id attempt in rush hour traffic at this point) i can generaly take corners sideways now from a few years of late night practice, again on deserted roads.

The instructor would take one look at me driving around with one had on the wheel and the other resting on the gear stick before he called it quits.

When the roads are busy during daylight hours i tend to take it easy and safely, as soon as it gets dark and quiet though i think up all kinds of stupid things to try out. You can see oncomming headlights a mile away and hear them before that.

The only accidents ive ever had (there have been a good few) have involved myself and either a ditch, curb or a wall. no passengers and no other road users ever involved. usualy because ive overcooked a turn, started a skid too late or took my foot off the accelerator and gained too much traction to keep sliding out.

[forntida]

There are a lot of Road Traffic Laws that drivers don't know about. A classic example is the lamp post/street light speed restriction.

Under a little-known section of the motoring laws, a road is classified as having a 30mph limit if there are no other speed signs and the street lights are no more than 200 yards apart. This is why if you are on a dual carriageway etc and there are lamp posts within the limits above you will see speed signs on some of them negating the above law.

When you think about it there must be some people in cities who never see a 30mph sign. The lamp post law covers that.

P.S. I had nothing better to do.