Story on the BBC

I'm sure a full investigation will out the facts, but in the meantime make your own judgements...

saw this on VD,

sad news

how sad.... RIP

How sad.....RIP. Poor family.

Thats sad news... thoughts to his family.

Such a sad story

My money is on they do fook all about the crusty old git cause he's too old

ugh 93?!!!

i mean i hope that i'm still around at that age, and i'd be devastated if i wasn't able to drive, but i'd probably declare myself SORN just to avoid something like this!

poor eyesight, poor hearing, poor reaction times, poor spatial awareness, poor strength for turning the wheel, restricted movement... all factor into why driving is so dangerous for someone at that age.

Obviously this is a little harsh, but for all i know the guy could be as fit as a fiddle and a bright spark... and it could be the biker's fault... i guess time will tell when more details are (hopefully) published.

What are they gonna do though?? A fine? ... take away his license and bus pass?

RIP fella.

The more we discuss this sort of thing the more it seems to me that the only real solution is to constantly re-test and reassess drivers. It would be a logistical nightmare and one many people would resent. But maybe all drivers of any vehicle should be assessed every 2 years. That way any who should no longer be driving will be caught in the assessment, people who have picked up bad habits would have to re-think etc.

I know it would be a pain in the arris, but it could make a difference to the road safety.

maybe not a complete retest..... however an eye test and a reaction time and possibly observation tests should be performed for all riders and drivers every 4 years.

They already do something along those lines for senior drivers in the states, don't they? Why not here?

I know plenty of older drivers who would have absolutely no problem whatsoever. OTOH, I know a few who would too.

I don't know how I'd fare - I'd be OK I think, and when I go to the optician they always tell you whether your eyesight is up to driving standard.

Something to consider, advanced drivers can have "negative reaction times", of course they cant react to a stimulus before they see it but they can predict a driving scenario before it happens, slowing down next to the playground just in case a kid runs out etc.

That wont show up in an artificial reaction time test, yet its still relevent. Someone with more experience could be a safer driver even though their "reaction time" is a lot slower than someone young (but stupid).

Part of the problem imo is that usually someone close knows there is a problem but doesnt do anything about it. "Dad's vision isnt what it used to be but its the only thing that gets him outside the house". People need to understand just what the consequences are in not stopping "dad" from driving.

Same thing again...

And I've said it before but this kind of situations keep happening, I don't understand why Britain, which is such a country that does so many things about health and safety doesnt introduce medical tests to be able to obtain a driving/riding license....

Portugal that is Portugal and people know has one of the highest rates of road mortalitly (mainly due to speed) in Europe, you can only get a license if you successfully pass a medical test.

Your license is valid to the age of 45, then you do the medical test again to renew it, then the same every 5 years till the age of 65 or 70...and then it's every 2 years.

If for any reason you fail the test, you won't get a license.
simple! things like this shouldn't be happening.

that sounds like a very good idea. ... Somehow the British would manage to mess up something so simple, and it'd end up going way over budget though!

I would have thought an assessment every 3 - 5 years from the age of 60 was something that would be easily introduced and a good money earner for the Government Agency concerned. The assessment only needs to be based along the lines of the hazzard perception and theory test along with a simple on-road assessment of skills, a mini test if you like. A certificate of health from their GP should come into it somewhere in the process.

Going slow, as some of them do, is not the big issue, it is their lack of anticipation, perception and awareness which places others in danger. I think the do-gooders seem to forget that a vehicle is essentially a very serious weapon in the wrong hands.

They might look quaint driving along in their immaculate old or even new car, looking through the steering wheel, unable to move their head to make any observations at all, but they really shouldn't be allowed; they all have free passes that get them all over the country. I wish I had a free pass.

All the political parties are concerned that if they restrict peoples 'right' to drive then it will be harder to get elected.

This issue has been debated quite often and the response has always been that the public wouldnot accept it (ie we would not get elected if we did this).

thats it. Whoever passes this law will loose a lot of votes from the older people who will be pissed at loosing their licences.

Thankfully my grandparents decided themselves that they are too old to drive and that they just don't want to anymore... one less thing to worry about.

How many accidents are caused by people losing their temper and attempting to overtake a slow moving vehicle where they shouldn't?

Going too slow can be just as dangerous, hence why you can fail a driving test for doing so.

But as Paul says it all comes down to people being unwilling to give up what they see as their "god given right".

And that is why it should be brought in before the next general election, because it'd take the second coming of Jesus to get Labour re-elected at the moment. They should be prepared to do the unpopular things before they're voted out, so they can sit in opposition and say "see the great things we did for this country".

Of course, it's compounded by the fact that oldies are more likely to vote in the first place.

i think a lot of young people would vote for old people off the road