Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Over 85, licence renewal tests to be abolished

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Over 85, licence renewal tests to be abolished

    Here's the link

    Pages - Statement Details


    though how many are actually on the road? I know I hope to be, I would hate to be house bound or have to suffer public transport if I live that long and are still spritley enough

  • #2
    so they came up with a system to keep dangerous older drivers off the roads,
    due to this it is discovered there are very few dangerous older driver left on the road (maybe due to testing ?)

    So now we get rid of those test,

    im really really glad the govt are saving our tax dollars NOT!
    National pride should not be a crime!.

    Comment


    • #3
      yeh otherwise it's up to the poor Dr to dob people in!!

      Comment


      • #4
        I think drivers aged 20-29 years old should be subjected to annual driving tests because they represent the highest number of fatal and serious crashes on our roads at 30%
        -

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think they're ever going fast enough to be in a serious accident.
          That said when someone confuses the pedals and drives through 3 houses it always seems to be an old person. Seems their reaction times slow with age. Reaction times aren't really tested in a standard C class test, make them do an emergency stop like with a bike test to test it. If they pass all of that then let them drive. Abolishing the test seems pretty dumb imo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by agrid View Post
            I think drivers aged 20-29 years old should be subjected to annual driving tests because they represent the highest number of fatal and serious crashes on our roads at 30%
            Make that 18-84 year old (+>85 year olds) and add in a medical and everyone can agree .
            We'd be targeting the group responsible for 100% of accidents.

            Comment


            • #7
              "In 2011, Tasmania ceased aged-based PDAs after the State’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner reported that compulsory aged-based driving assessments were discriminatory"

              Surely that should work the other way too? I.e 17years old is maybe to early or too late fro some people to start driving a car?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mr_andersen View Post
                I don't think they're ever going fast enough to be in a serious accident.
                So people only cause accidents if they're going fast? Clearly, no.

                Doesn't matter how fast you're going if you pull out in front of moving traffic when theres not enough room.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by agrid View Post
                  I think drivers aged 20-29 years old should be subjected to annual driving tests because they represent the highest number of fatal and serious crashes on our roads at 30%
                  But they dont test for stupidity do they ?
                  National pride should not be a crime!.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    i thought it said something like 80000 of them were still licenced
                    Atlas Performance, dyna pumps, " your name goes here"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shmoo View Post
                      So people only cause accidents if they're going fast? Clearly, no.

                      Doesn't matter how fast you're going if you pull out in front of moving traffic when theres not enough room.
                      I was just making a cheap stereotypical joke.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by out_in_front View Post
                        "In 2011, Tasmania ceased aged-based PDAs after the State’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner reported that compulsory aged-based driving assessments were discriminatory"

                        Surely that should work the other way too? I.e 17years old is maybe to early or too late fro some people to start driving a car?

                        One day they'll cease age discriminatory insurance policies too!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mr_andersen View Post
                          I don't think they're ever going fast enough to be in a serious accident.
                          That said when someone confuses the pedals and drives through 3 houses it always seems to be an old person. Seems their reaction times slow with age. Reaction times aren't really tested in a standard C class test, make them do an emergency stop like with a bike test to test it. If they pass all of that then let them drive. Abolishing the test seems pretty dumb imo.
                          Seems to me it's often a pissed person in the 20s and 30s who crashes into a house and kills a sleeping child. Personally I think mandatory testing should be introduced for people who come to the attention of those looking after the roads. It's seldom a person who has driven faultlessly for a long time who causes the big crash.
                          www.hurtlegear.com.au

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It in itself is not a bad thing. The DoT elderly retesting was/is a joke.

                            If there is no medical condition causing issues, there is no reason for a senior driver to be any different to any other driver - apart from more experienced.
                            The problem is medical condition(s) are pretty much guaranteed by the time you are 85. The question is whether their effects are significant. (and it commonly is, well before 85)

                            Pretty much none of the DoT assessors have any understanding of medical conditions... or how it could affect driving. Its not a requirement for assessors.
                            There are plenty of assessors who either think its not necessary, or and will ask a senior retest driver to literally drive around the block, confirm they can start, stop and have the strength to steer the car, then back to the office within 10 minutes so they can spend the remaining 35 minutes allocated on other paperwork or playing solitaire on the computer. I know a few assessors who will admit the practice is rife, and plenty of first hand witnesses of this by family members of seniors who had to sit the 85+ retests. (drop them off for the retest, wait in the car and 10 minutes later they are back.)

                            I have bashed my head against the DoT, Minister for Transport & ORS for a few years on this issue and have walked away feeling like I now have cognitive impairment myself.

                            ...
                            Oh FFS!
                            “Mandatory reporting has proven the best method to identify drivers of all ages who are potentially a high-risk on our roads,” Mr Buswell said.
                            Yeah... They have it @%#$# sussed!
                            The best way to identify people with cognitive impairment is to ask people if they have cognitive impairment to report themselves to the DoT.
                            No way there can be a problem with that logic!

                            Secondly, as a final cop-out by the DoT... If people are unlikely to have insight to report themselves, just leave it to GPs to do it. - despite plenty of studies showing gross cognitive impairment is often missed by GPs, and gets worse as you look at mild impairment... Not to mention the patient conflict it causes Drs, so is often avoided.

                            I don't see why they don't go the same way with drink driving.
                            Ditch all the costs associated with the booze bus, RBTs etc and just require all drunk drivers to report themselves.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hurtlegear View Post
                              Seems to me it's often a pissed person in the 20s and 30s who crashes into a house and kills a sleeping child. Personally I think mandatory testing should be introduced for people who come to the attention of those looking after the roads. It's seldom a person who has driven faultlessly for a long time who causes the big crash.
                              Yes young people seem to pissy drive more than old people. But testing young people every year won't stop that, but no doubt other measures are necessary. I said old people tend to crash into houses and things more because of mistaking the pedals coupled with slower reaction times. If I were to mistake the pedals or have the car in the wrong gear, I'd notice immediately, I wouldn't crash through a house or two before I realised something was wrong. If you get to the point where it takes you 5 seconds to react to something like that, you shouldn't be allowed to drive a 1.5 tonne steel death machine.

                              Neighbour's car slams into house
                              Car drags woman into shop | Northern Star
                              No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
                              Elderly woman crashes car into Mandurah house - inMyCommunity - Perth, Western Australia

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X