Over 70s driving tests

[Tak]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7872724.stm

"We believe that every driver over the age of 70 should have to sit a hazard perception test and medical, to prove their competence to drive on our roads."

To be honest I am surprised something like this isn't already in force.
Whilst I know of some elderly people who are still able to drive, I have seen visitors here at work who look so ill/unsteady/absent minded they could be admitted themselves and then they totter off and get in a car.

[Burble]

I'm all for it. Whilst I'm sure there are plenty of > 70's that are safe to be on the road there are a hell of a lot that should not be behind the wheel.

[Mark]

My Grandfather was driving into his late 60s/early 70s, but he recognised when it was time to hang up the keys (mainly due to hip problems) and stopped. A lot of older people don't and just keep on going until something stops them - all too often an accident.

[Fayshun]

My mum banned my dad (82 this year) from driving about 9 years ago after he had a TIA which knackered one of his legs a bit.

He did say years ago that he would pack up driving when he thought he was too old ;)

[cleanbluesky]

Luckily policy on the matter isnt decided on the whims of the prejudiced - a person can make driving errors at any age.

[Mark]

It isn't about prejudice, it's about common sense.

It's a fact that accidents are more likely in two circumstances - (a) new, inexperienced, drivers (already covered by legislation), and (b) older drivers lack of concentration/ability.

[cleanbluesky]

It isn't about prejudice, it's about common sense.

It's a fact that accidents are more likely in two circumstances - (a) new, inexperienced, drivers (already covered by legislation), and (b) older drivers lack of concentration/ability.

Failure to provide evidence for a claim can easily be mistaken for prejudice. There are increased accidents for older drivers although this is no certain correlation that this is due to a lack of driving ability, particularly given that older people are also more likely to get injured in car accidents that were not their fault.

I think that medically, older people are more likely to suffer from disabilities which may limit their ability to drive and that the duty of ensuring a person is fit to drive should fall upon a doctor.

[Mark]

Mental ability and concentration levels decline with age. That's (I hope) indisputable. It's not hard to work out how both of those would impact on driving ability.

[cleanbluesky]

Mental ability and concentration levels decline with age. That's (I hope) indisputable. It's not hard to work out how both of those would impact on driving ability.

That's a blanket statistic based on averages, and given the importance that mobility can play in an older individual's life and the potetial cost of immobile older adults I think it would be much cheaper and fairer to judge people on an individual basis rather than automatically label them as typical of an age group.

[Tak]

I think it would be much cheaper and fairer to judge people on an individual basis

Surely that is what a test like this would do though? It isn't saying "you're too old, you can't drive", its a way of judging on an individual basis whether the person is safe enough behind the wheel.

Considering the way most people drive, I'm all for mandatory retests every 5-10 years anyway :p

[cleanbluesky]

Surely that is what a test like this would do though? It isn't saying "you're too old, you can't drive", its a way of judging on an individual basis whether the person is safe enough behind the wheel.

Considering the way most people drive, I'm all for mandatory retests every 5-10 years anyway :p

It would require lots of effort for me to pass my test again, I'm sure it would require the same amount of effort for a 70 year old. Why should someone face a re-test due to their age when other indicators of potential disability (such as sight and disability) are given much greater freedom to judge their own capacity to drive by the DVLA?

[LeperousDust]

I don't think it would be that much effort to pass your test again, yes you'd definitely need to brush up on a few things, but its all there. If its going to be that difficult i should question why you're driving now? Same with most of the population really... As long as there wasn't another associated cost with driving i'd take a test every 5 years, if it keeps mad people off the road i'm fine with that as well.

[Fayshun]

There's a massive difference between everyday driving and driving to pass a test.

[Burble]

There's a massive difference between everyday driving and driving to pass a test.

Thank god for that!

[Fayshun]

Thank god for that!
I'd fail before I got out the test centre!

[Mark]

I'm sure they could come up with some sort of specific test for this purpose. Many of the older drivers have never been tested to modern standards anyway (which in itself might be an issue, but not one I'd argue).

Something along the lines of a simple medical and a hazard perception test would screen out the majority of those who are no longer safe to drive.

However, that approach would require application of common sense - something I'm not sure our government are capable of.

[Burble]

I'd fail before I got out the test centre!

Ditto. But I'm definitely a better driver for it.

[LeperousDust]

There's a massive difference between everyday driving and driving to pass a test.

I agree i'm not saying there isn't but its not hard to drive to driving test standards for a test once in a while, and as mentioned it would do everyone good. Yeah it involves a million checks before you even turn the ignition and move but they're not difficult!? Just a little bit of forethought and brushing up the day before would be enough to sort you out really...

[cheets]

An old chap who lived in my street driving deteriorated as he got older, I remember seeing him pull out onto the main right infront of a oncoming car, the driver had to slam on, I saw him to it again coming out of the local Somerfield, I think at a certain aged you should be re tested, If you are old enough to retire then you should have to re take a driving test.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/4970182.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7859367.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7789750.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-545828/Terrified-drivers-forced-crash-barriers-grandmother-drives-15-miles-wrong-motorway.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Man_drives_wrong_way_for_40_miles&in_article_id=512619&in_page_id=2

http://www.duck2watercarinsurance.co.uk/html/news-italian-drivers-car-insurance-quote-to-rise.htm

Above are links I found on google, they are basic errors that no driver should be making.

[cleanbluesky]

it would do everyone good.

I'm surprised you don't voluntarily re-test then. It would do you good, be in your benefit etc... its common sense.

[Feek]

I've often wondered about doing that, I think it would be very interesting. What would be the ramifications if one were to fail though?

[LeperousDust]

I'm surprised you don't voluntarily re-test then. It would do you good, be in your benefit etc... its common sense.

I'm not particularly made of money, so paying for frivolous tests would be stupid. As i said if it was free i'd do it. Wanna pay ;D :p

//Edit:Actually frig that i'd also definitely do it if it lowered my premiums, i'm happy to proove i can drive if it keeps my insurance down. Maybe you're right maybe it should be voluntary, but that way insurers would price out the people who don't bother, that sounds fine to me...

[Blackstar]

The fact is that most people over 70 probably sat a VERY different test to the ones we do now or none at all. The number of times i've seen older people peering over their steering wheel at me as they attempt to drive through my car is just silly.
Re-tests (at a reduced cost obviously) every few years for over 70s would make the roads safer.

[cheets]

I cycle a lot on the road and the worst drivers are women, old people and van/truck drivers.

Probably Van/truck drivers then old people then women, in that order.

[A Place of Light]

IMHO, every driver should be re-evaluated every five years.....regardless of their age.

[Tak]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/Driver-82-failed-sight-test.4960582.jp

The 48-year-old cyclist, from Gosport, landed on the windscreen of the Ford Fiesta, shattering it, and then rolled down in front of the car and became trapped underneath.
Kellett, of Long Drive, Rowner, claimed he did not know he had hit someone and continued to drive more than 65ft until passersby managed to stop him

[Jhadur]

'He certainly does not know what happened. He is in ill health and lost his wife three years ago'

Not sure what relevance that had to the accident.

Magistrates banned Kellett from driving for 12 months and ordered him to pay a £230 fine, £15 victim surcharge and £35 costs. They did not give a separate penalty for failing the eye sight test.

Pathetic sentence tbh.

[iCraig]

IMHO, every driver should be re-evaluated every five years.....regardless of their age.

Perhaps in an ideal world. The amount of drivers out there though would mean it would be impossible for the system to cope with the sheer amount of tests each day.

[iCraig]

Luckily policy on the matter isnt decided on the whims of the prejudiced - a person can make driving errors at any age.

This is true, but we don't have the luxury of a case-by-case evaluation of every driver in Britain. So, you simply do the "best fit" and establish a re-test on those who are more likely to be below the standard at that point.

It's a sad but true fact of life that as you get older, your reactions slow down and you become less in control of a vehicle. I can't really see a frail 86yr old woman controlling a blow-out on a motorway, can you? Plus, as Blackstar says those approaching that re-rest criteria should be eligible anyway, everything else aside, they passed the standard that was set a long time ago. The roads have changed dramatically since then and it's scary how many still abide by the test standards of the 30s and 40s rather than the modern highway code. "I don't bother with all those lanes. You just go where you want to go and stay out of everyone elses way and it's fine" Is an actual quote. :(

[LeperousDust]

Perhaps in an ideal world. The amount of drivers out there though would mean it would be impossible for the system to cope with the sheer amount of tests each day.

Hence why i said don't make it compulsory but make it possible. Insurance companies will lower premiums to people who take the test, which in a capitalist market should force most people to do so, unless its prohibitively expensive or too much hassle etc... Which works fine, things will all balance out naturally.

[Tak]

Something I recently came across on another forum:
UK Photocard Driving Licences - check expiry

Thousands of motorists are at risk of being fined up to £1,000 because they are unwittingly driving without a valid licence.

They risk prosecution after failing to spot the extremely small print on their photocard licence which says it automatically expires after 10 years and has to be renewed - even though drivers are licensed to drive until the age of 70. The fiasco has come to light a decade after the first batch of photo licences was issued in July 1998, just as they start to expire.

Motoring organisations blamed the Government for the fiasco and said 'most' drivers believed their licences were for life. A mock-up driving licence from 1998 when the photocards were launched shows the imminent expiry date as item '4b'. They said officials had failed to publicise sufficiently the fact that new-style licences - unlike the old paper ones - expire after a set period and have to be renewed.

To rub salt into wounds, drivers will have to pay £17.50 to renew their card - a charge which critics have condemned as a 'stealth tax' and which will earn the Treasury an estimated £437million over 25 years. Official DVLA figures reveal that while 16,136 expired this summer, so far only 11,566 drivers have renewed, leaving 4,570 outstanding. With another 300,000 photocard licences due to expire over the coming year, experts fear the number of invalid licences will soar, putting thousands more drivers in breach of the law and at risk of a fine.

At the heart of the confusion is the small print on the tiny credit-card-size photo licence, which is used in conjunction with the paper version.
4b: The small print on the back of the driving licence is easy to miss, just below the driver name on the front of the photocard licence is a series of dates and details - each one numbered.
Number 4b features a date in tiny writing, but no explicit explanation as to what it means. The date's significance is only explained if the driver turns over the card and reads the key on the back which states that '4b' means 'licence valid to'.

Even more confusingly, an adjacent table on the rear of the card sets out how long the driver is registered to hold a licence - that is until his or her 70th birthday.
A total of 25million new-style licences have been issued but - motoring experts say - drivers were never sufficiently warned they would expire after 10 years.
The DVLA said failure to update the photocard after 10 years fell into the same category as failing to inform them of a change of address.

CHECK YOUR LICENCE EXPIRY DATE!!!

When I mentioned this to Mic, he hadn't realised this date was on the card. Upon checking, his photocard expires in 2 years (mine in 5).

Also on the back of the photocard there is the grid which shows what you are licensed to drive; secton 11 of the grid shows an expiry date which is the day before my (and his) 70th birthday implying that on the day I turn 70, any licence I have, will expire.
Surely then this would mean if I wanted to continue driving after the age of 70 I would have to renew my licence, presumably by retaking my test?

[cheets]

I took my test in 99 I best check my licence.

Insurance is another strange mystery, it gets cheaper as you get older, should it start off expensive then get cheap around 30-50 then start to rise as you get older.

Old and Young people most cause the most crashes on the road.

[A Place of Light]

Perhaps in an ideal world. The amount of drivers out there though would mean it would be impossible for the system to cope with the sheer amount of tests each day.

It works in the US, a country with a population four times that of our country and a far greater percentage of drivers.

Why impossible?
Charge £35 per person for a 30-40 minute re-evaluation.
This comfortably allows you to process one person per hour, which translates to 40 per week per examiner, and easily covers the cost of their wages and any associated costs such as any paperwork involved. They would be based at existing driving test centres so no extra premises would be needed either.

[A Place of Light]

Old and Young people most cause the most crashes on the road.

Fixed for greater accuracy.

[A Place of Light]

Surely then this would mean if I wanted to continue driving after the age of 70 I would have to renew my licence, presumably by retaking my test?

IIRC your license expires the day before your 70th, so if you wish to renew it you must A) pass an eye test for your doctor allowing you to then B) fill in the appropriate forms to the DVAL to inform them you're not going to let your license lapse.

[cleanbluesky]

This is true, but we don't have the luxury of a case-by-case evaluation of every driver in Britain. So, you simply do the "best fit" and establish a re-test on those who are more likely to be below the standard at that point.

It's a sad but true fact of life that as you get older, your reactions slow down and you become less in control of a vehicle. I can't really see a frail 86yr old woman controlling a blow-out on a motorway, can you?

I couldn't see any frail person, regardless of age having a good chance in that situation and I doubt that either of us could be certain to handle it.

Also, blow-outs aren't on the driving test curriculum.

I don't think age is the predictor of whether a person will be more likely to be unsuitable for driving, I think overall mental and physical health is - and no-one have managed to argue the case without the assumption that old people just get crap at everything eventually (right guys?).

Also, suggesting age is a valid criteria for re-test would be a departure from other policies of the DVLA, most of which expect self-reporting - eyesight, disability etc. etc.

[A Place of Light]

Also, suggesting age is a valid criteria for re-test would be a departure from other policies of the DVLA, most of which expect self-reporting - eyesight, disability etc. etc.

Exactly, as there is no fixed age where one tends to lose our faculties/awareness. It doesn't just happen, it's gradual and comes in at different points in our lifespan depending on the individual.
Re-assess everyone every five years or so.
A far more effective solution IMHO.

[cleanbluesky]

Exactly, as there is no fixed age where one tends to lose our faculties/awareness. It doesn't just happen, it's gradual and comes in at different points in our lifespan depending on the individual.
Re-assess everyone every five years or so.
A far more effective solution IMHO.

I think a re-assessment might be fairer to everyone although I'd prefer not to have to as a matter of convenience, I also dislike it when an organisation withdraws a licence (of any kind) unless you are willing to offer them time or money in return for 'renewal'.

[A Place of Light]

I think a re-assessment might be fairer to everyone although I'd prefer not to have to as a matter of convenience, I also dislike it when an organisation withdraws a licence (of any kind) unless you are willing to offer them time or money in return for 'renewal'.

I can't think of any other example where someone is allowed to operate machinery and not be re-assessed periodically with the possibility of losing their operating privileges should they fail to perform.....can you?
The fact that this does not apply to what is probably the most commonly operated machine in the country makes this all the more laughable in my opinion.
Note: By re-assess I do not mean revert to the similar behaviour you were required to demonstrate on your test.....I mean you just drive from point A to point B and the assessor simply watches your driving.

[iCraig]

It works in the US, a country with a population four times that of our country and a far greater percentage of drivers.

Why impossible?
Charge £35 per person for a 30-40 minute re-evaluation.
This comfortably allows you to process one person per hour, which translates to 40 per week per examiner, and easily covers the cost of their wages and any associated costs such as any paperwork involved. They would be based at existing driving test centres so no extra premises would be needed either.

Are our driving systems the same though? For someone who hasn't been long out the test/exam environment it seemed incredibly strained.

[iCraig]

I couldn't see any frail person, regardless of age having a good chance in that situation and I doubt that either of us could be certain to handle it.

Well people who are so frail that they don't have proper control of a vehicle, shouldn't have a license. Whether you're too old, or you're physically handicapped in a way where your strength is very much degraded. It's not prejudiced, it's common sense. You don't put a lump of metal weighing several tons, at 70mph in the control of somebody, who if challenged beyond the normal realms of control, will lose control and risk lives. Where a person with normal strength would cope? Yes I've had a blowout, with my first car. It wasn't very nice and it does make you think that the world is ending for those few seconds. I can also appreciate others sentiment about the fact older people may struggle. It doesn't require constantly applied pressure to the steering wheel to keep the car relatively steady.

Also, blow-outs aren't on the driving test curriculum. So? Does that mean it doesn't matter? They happen. Drivers should be at least physically capable of dealing with them. I'm not saying drivers should be ready to dodge debris from a tornado, but a tyre blowing isn't exactly a freak of nature event for our roads is it? For what it's worth I think the cirriculum should extend to motorway driving. It's a significant portion of typical driving, and you should be tested on your ability to use them.

I don't think age is the predictor of whether a person will be more likely to be unsuitable for driving, I think overall mental and physical health is

... urm, which typically decline with age.

- and no-one have managed to argue the case without the assumption that old people just get crap at everything eventually (right guys?).

So you think old people stay just as mentally and physically competenant as the youngsters? I'm not saying when you hit 65, *bam* you're an invalid, but it's just simple biology. Your hearing typically begins to fail, eyesight, reaction time, decision making it all begins to decline with age. Along with physical strength. They need aids to help them walk straight. If they fall, they need help getting up. Yet some of these people are still trusted with a car. The retests would weed these out. In the cases where the person has aged well, and is still safe to drive, well then the retest will recognise that and their license is kept. Obviously, the retest in question would need to engineered carefully to respect the person's original license as much as possible. Perhaps testing on things that nerves don't have such a stranglehold over. It would be difficult though, just because an old man is terrified he's going to lose his license has a really crap test due to nerves, and not neccessarily incompetance, doesn't mean his license should be revoked.

Also, suggesting age is a valid criteria for re-test would be a departure from other policies of the DVLA, most of which expect self-reporting - eyesight, disability etc. etc.

Why do you think they currently rely on humility of the driver to hold their hand up and admit they can't safely drive anymore? The DVLA sure as hell don't rely on us to keep on top of our tax discs. Otherwise they wouldn't send out ANPR vans checking up on us all would they? It's because in the current system they don't have the ability to call drivers back and keep on top of their health on a case by case basis. For whatever reason. Whether it's legislation/law they need, or a more efficient system to cope with the torrent of retest applicants that would flood into their test centres all over the country.

[A Place of Light]

Are our driving systems the same though? For someone who hasn't been long out the test/exam environment it seemed incredibly strained.

IMHO our system is more strict than theirs, but my point is that I'm not suggesting you have a re-TEST every five years.....merely a re-assessment.
Just so an appointed person can watch you drive for 30-40 minutes and see if there are any gaping holes in your roadcraft.
I'm sure we all know people who we cannot understand how they managed to get through a test. This would be a chance to identify them and help them improve their driving.

[Belmit]

Just checked my licence... it expires in less than 3 months time! Would never have spotted that, unless the DVLA contacts you about it?


Edit: Aha. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_078070

They contact you with a renewal pack two months before expiry.

[A Place of Light]

Barfmit[/b];275242']Just checked my licence... it expires in less than 3 months time! Would never have spotted that, unless the DVLA contacts you about it?


Edit: Aha. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_078070

They contact you with a renewal pack two months before expiry.

You're 69?


dude

[Feek]

It works in the US, a country with a population four times that of our country and a far greater percentage of drivers.

Drivers in the USA have to take a test every five years?

[Feek]

There's a difference between renew and retake though, I read APoL's post as saying that they have to retake a test which is something that surprises me.

[Tak]

Barfmit[/b];275242']Edit: Aha. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_078070

They contact you with a renewal pack two months before expiry.

The forum I got the original info from quite a few people realised theirs had expired with not a word from DVLA so I would't bank on a renewal pack just in case.

[iCraig]

IMHO our system is more strict than theirs, but my point is that I'm not suggesting you have a re-TEST every five years.....merely a re-assessment.
Just so an appointed person can watch you drive for 30-40 minutes and see if there are any gaping holes in your roadcraft.
I'm sure we all know people who we cannot understand how they managed to get through a test. This would be a chance to identify them and help them improve their driving.

I completely agree, I'm just theorising on the reasons it hasn't be done. It's one of those "common sense" things that the entire population talks about, but the government never seem to sort out. :)

[Rich_L]

There's an interesting balance I always think - it suits the country to have a flexible, mobile workforce and also to have mobile OAPs etc as it's less of a burden. The driving test could be made much more difficult, but then a corresponding %age of people would be less mobile, less able to travel to get work, more reliant on public transport etc.

So I think generally the number of accidents which could be avoided by a stricter test, compulsory re-testing etc, is probably considered a reasonable price for enabling a larger proportion of the population with additional mobility and flexibility. Or maybe that's just me being cynical :p

[A Place of Light]

There's a difference between renew and retake though, I read APoL's post as saying that they have to retake a test which is something that surprises me.

Not a retest, just a re-assessment.

[A Place of Light]

There's an interesting balance I always think - it suits the country to have a flexible, mobile workforce and also to have mobile OAPs etc as it's less of a burden. The driving test could be made much more difficult, but then a corresponding %age of people would be less mobile, less able to travel to get work, more reliant on public transport etc.

So I think generally the number of accidents which could be avoided by a stricter test, compulsory re-testing etc, is probably considered a reasonable price for enabling a larger proportion of the population with additional mobility and flexibility. Or maybe that's just me being cynical :p

The driving test hasn't changed in decades, apart from the addition of the emergency stop and IIRC the 3 point turn. Yes, the highway code has of course, and the way it's conducted has (spliting into practical and theory) but the actual test on operating the vehicle is pretty much the same as it was for your parents and probably for their parents too?

I think that everyone who passes should be forced to display a marker showing that they have had no motorway instruction. This means that people who live near motorways could have extra lessons to add this entitlement and those who live many miles away from the motorway network wouldn't have a needless test (and set of costs) forced upon them.

[Jhadur]

The driving test hasn't changed in decades, apart from the addition of the emergency stop and IIRC the 3 point turn. Yes, the highway code has of course, and the way it's conducted has (spliting into practical and theory) but the actual test on operating the vehicle is pretty much the same as it was for your parents and probably for their parents too?


Parallel parking was added to the test after the 3 point turn and E Stop.

[A Place of Light]

Parallel parking was added to the test after the 3 point turn and E Stop.

Forgot that one, but you take my point.
The test is pitifully easy. It covers only the most basic aspects of driving.
Some people slip through the net, unfortunately this net is only a one-time oppertunity to weed out the less than able so a periodic re-evaluation would be an ideal solution.

[Feek]

The test is pitifully easy. It covers only the most basic aspects of driving.

If that's the case, how come less than 50% of people pass? Badly prepared, not ready, or is it perhaps a bit harder now than you remember? Tolworth Overall success rate 2005 / 2006 43.85%
Isleworth Overall success rate 2005 / 2006 42.73%
Morden Overall success rate 2005 / 2006 49.06%
Sutton (Surrey) Overall success rate 2005 / 2006 43.70%

[A Place of Light]

If that's the case, how come less than 50% of people pass? Badly prepared, not ready, or is it perhaps a bit harder now than you remember?

No, it's because it amounts to less than a single hours driving which doesn't even cover things like motorways. Less than 50% of people pass because the sample pool is huge, and a significant number of applicants do not have the basic skills to drive. The test, IMHO should be made up of several one hour sessions as suggesting that a candidate will encounter even a fraction of the possible scenarios they WILL come up against in their motoring career is silly at best. You should also be asked questions on ALL of the highway code rather than have the current lottery system whereby you could theoretically learn part of it and pass if the questions matched your knowledge. Some learners only partially learn the highway code, and this is unacceptable IMHO.
Every driver who passes should be a confident and able motorist, if not immediately then soon after. This is clearly not the case.

If the test isn't so easy then I imagine it's rare that you encounter any incompetance while on the road?

[Glaucus]

I think it's a good idea, it is not a driving test it is the theory test and a medical. However it would be good if everyone had to do that say every 5-10 years. But then it depends how much the tests was.

Theory would cost the same perhaps it could include some sort of reaction time and a eye test would cover the biggest medical problem.

It should also say on your license if you need glasses to make it easy for cops. At the moment I don't think it does?

I oppose a full driving retest. Inherently expensive and time consuming.

[AboveTheSalt]

I think it's a good idea, it is not a driving test it is the theory test and a medical. However it would be good if everyone had to do that say every 5-10 years. But then it depends how much the tests was.Retesting everyone every five years sounds like a very good idea - particularly for driving examiners.

It should also say on your license if you need glasses to make it easy for cops. At the moment I don't think it does?Do you carry your driving license on you? Mine lives at home in a drawer in the kitchen . . . I think . . .

[Glaucus]

Do you carry your driving license on you? Mine lives at home in a drawer in the kitchen . . . I think . . .

Yep, photo card id. If you don;t carry it what id do you carry? Find it useful. Hardly ever need it but when you need id it's great.

[A Place of Light]

Do you carry your driving license on you? Mine lives at home in a drawer in the kitchen . . . I think . . .
Card in my wallet, paper counterpart at home.

[Toby]

Not a retest, just a re-assessment.

I actually think it should be a full re-test, but every ten years rather than five.

I don't see a downside to it tbh. Yes it would place additional strain on the test centre network but that would just force them to open more centres and create more jobs.

Basically I think your licence should last for ten years but you'd be permitted to renew it from the start of the tenth year (i.e. nine years from taking the previous test). You have a window of one year in which to pass your test. If you've not managed this by the time the ten years are up, you lose your licence.

A criticism I often hear of such a scheme is that many people who depend on their cars will be forced off the roads. Well if you can't be bothered or aren't capable of passing a test within a year then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

[semi-pro waster]

I'd go with the idea of a retest every 10 years or some other similar period as a lot can change within that sort of timescale - it doesn't necessarily have to be along the same lines as a driving test with rigid focus on "safe" driving practice (feeding wheel through hands etc) but certainly for hazard perception and adequate observation.

[A Place of Light]

I'd still choose 5 year intervals over ten.....and include a compulsory eye test as well. You're senses can wane significantly in five years never mind ten. How about a compromise?
Every ten years until you're 40 then every five years after that?

A criticism I often hear of such a scheme is that many people who depend on their cars will be forced off the roads. Well if you can't be bothered or aren't capable of passing a test within a year then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place
I completely agree.

[jmc41]

In terms of old drivers I certainly have some doubts about, for example my 85 year old grandfather passing. I thought they already had a re-test at a set age though? Mine is apparently valid (from June 01) to September 52 the day before my 70th birthday!

And that's a differnet date to the date on the front that suggests I need a new image after 3 years or so.

Tests every x years might weed out some of the more dubious drivers; but I'm concerned it'd add yet more costs into what is already extraordinarily expensive.

[A Place of Light]

In terms of old drivers I certainly have some doubts about, for example my 85 year old grandfather passing. I thought they already had a re-test at a set age though? Mine is apparently valid (from June 01) to September 52 the day before my 70th birthday!
At 70 your license expires. IIRC when this happens you send off the correct form and you receive a new license. I can't remember if an eye test is needed though, but there's definitely no form of re-test.
Tests every x years might weed out some of the more dubious drivers; but I'm concerned it'd add yet more costs into what is already extraordinarily expensive.
I'd gladly pay an extra £40 or so every five years if it meant that people who shouldn't even be on the roads were forced back upto standard.