Older drivers/riders

Hi folks.

Just to keep folk informed, there is a new discussion paper from RTA,
NSW about older drivers licencing.

Have a look at :-
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/olderdriverdiscussionpaper.html

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Hmm interesting, particularly the 10 km limit from home if you're over 85.

The graphs do indicate that almost no motorcyclists over 65 get killed. In
fact, for the over 65s, it is the safest form of getting about.
What's with the 5-9 yo motorcyclists?

Theo

 

On that scale it looks like 1 fatality p.a. You just need to watch
funny home videos to understand how a 5-9 can lose control of a bike and
fail to regain it.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Well maybe not for the moment GB. But let's not forget that
interstate bureaucrats have a nasty habit of getting their heads
together occasionally and coming up with "marvellous ideas, all in the
name of nationally unifying legislation."

How can we maintain a reputation of being one of the most regulated
countries in the free world if they don't bring it new legislation
every now and then?

After all, implementing something new in SA could mean a promotion for
some shiney arse down there?

 

FWIW, this is what I sent them:-

Hi there.

I'd like to suggest that you leave the situation exactly as it is.

While it may sound really good to more closely align NSW with
international standards, we, in NSW do not have access to international
standards of public transport.

Your proposed "graduate out" structure is going to add yet another
difficult to enforce set of rules for our all ready overloaded police
force, so, bluntly, it isn't going to work.

Also, while they may be old, or over 75 or 80 or 85 drivers are not
(all) stupid. They realise that a noticeable percentage of the drivers
on the road are already unlicenced, so what are the RTA or the police
going to do with repeat geriatric unlicenced drivers?

Lock 'em all up?

I suspect that this issue would be more favorably received, if the older
population felt that there was a more stringent training regime in place
for new drivers.

Your recent (1 July) changes aren't likely to have any real effect on
the level of competence of new drivers. You have just added to
paperwork, not real effect.

So the older drivers will just say to themselves, well, we are better
than the young ones, so we should keep on driving...and they will.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

You raised some very good points there Cam.

 

Interesting enough. But what about holding your license for 30 years
without driving/riding? What about assessing drivers/riders for
demonstrable skills and knowledge when they renew their licenses? Keeping
your skills and knowledge current seems to be a useful thing.

John Dwyer.

 

How about a compulsory MOST every rego regardless of age then ?

 

Aaaaaaaaargh, nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

circus tricks suck

betty

 

Already exists - once you get to a certain age (65 or 70 ?) you have
to have a competency test every couple of years (in NSW).

JL

 

I wholeheartedly support that - if every 2-3 years EVERY driver and
rider had to go prove their competence to keep their licence then I
think the standard of driving would improve (well either that or
there'd be more unlicenced drivers but at least removing the licences
of the incompetent of all ages would be a good start).

JL

 

Not only would this fail but the logistics is ungainly at best , most of
us would pass the test and round the corner return to bad habits .

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:52:12 +1000

That's what I used to think.

But then I saw a report on a Brit test of this... and it turned out
that habits are.. well... habitual.

Can't recall the exact numbers but over half the drivers, knowing it
was a test, failed. Usually failure to signal, tailgating, and
failure to anticipate meaning sudden manouvers.

Zebee

 

But thats pommies , and we know what they are like .

 

Can we assume this will be preceeded by an overhaul of the public transport
system, so that it becomes a viable option. Or do you intend to imprison
people in their homes?

Theo
In Perth, public transport is so good that 11% of all daily journeys use
public transport, about two thirds of which is by bus, 8% of daily journeys
are by bicycle. I vote to have the dedicated peak-hour bus lanes renamed by
bicycle lanes.

 

You assume too much by drawing a connection that wasn't countenanced.

I support testing to ensure/confirm that ALL those who have a licence
have a minimum level of competence.Is it not reasonable to expect
everyone who holds a drivers licence to to be competent ?

Now what you do with the results of that outcome is a related but
seperate discussion. I would suggest that (as Cam implied) that
incompetence isn't something that the elderly(or the newly licenced)
have a mortgage on. I would in fact suggest it is just as likely that
someone of middle age has failed to keep abreast of the road rules or
has developed a number of poor habits (failing to look in mirrors let
alone do head checks before changing lanes, failing to indicate etc).

My observation is that the poorest drivers(1) are not actually the
much lambasted P platers, it is in fact people of my own demographic
plus or minus 10 years. They've been driving long enough to think they
know it all, and long enough to be out of date on the road rules and
to have developed poor habits.

What you then do with the multiplicity of failures I would expect to
result is a public management/social services question.

You could for example suspend their licence until they'd completed and
passed a test (what you've jumped to the assumption of), or you could
downgrade their licence while still allowing them to drive. We
currently have two levels of (full) licence in NSW - Gold and Silver
- Gold means you haven't been booked for anything for a couple of
years (5 I think), silver means you have. Insurance companies can
legally discriminate based on your driving record and licence level
(although they currently seem to have settled on a binary "booked in
the last 2 years" yes/no rule). Introduce a third level for those who
fail the test and the financial imposition by the insurance companies
of increased premiums would create a good incentive for many to do
something about it.

Alternatives could be options like 3 strikes and your out (give 'em a
couple of goes and say a year to pass, if they work out they're not
going to pass you've given them sufficient time to re-organise their
life around a need to find alternate ways around).

At the end of the day are you suggesting that incompetent drivers
should be allowed to hold a licence just because they managed to pass
a test 20 or 30 years ago ? (ie Your typical middle aged driver).

Do you think the Civil Aviation Authority has it wrong when it
requires stringent health tests and ongoing training/testing etc ?

You used to discuss sensibly, some time about a month ago you seem to
have decided it wasn't worth it - what happened ?This is a statement
worthy of Jones or Zemanek.

Did I suggest that the penalty for failing your driving licence test
was imprisonment ? Home or otherwise ? If intended to be an analysis
of the life of someone who no longer has a licence then clearly we
should hand out licences to everyone regardless of competence or
physical capability, as clearly everyone regardless of their ability
should have a licence otherwise they are a prisoner. I don't want my
9month old son to be imprisoned, so you'll be handing him a licence
too then ?

Before the invention of the motor car people got around, and if every
car was stopped tomorrow they'd still get around. Public transport
ISN'T the only transport option in absence of a driving licence, but
you jumped straight to the extreme without even considering there
might be something in between that could be viable. See above.

Sure go for it, whatever.

JL
(1) noting that there are many ways you can define poor driver(2); I'm
defining it as "most likely to cause a crash or cause another driver/
rider to have to take avoiding action"
(2) this being the root cause of the much argued "I'm a good driver
statistic of most people thinking they're good drivers because they
are considering the question from different criteria

 

John is ready to come face to face with big words.

Theo

 

I was going to let this slide but what the hell.
John, I'm a simple person and try not to confuse people by using big words
or any moe words than are necessary. You have previously objected to this
saying that I'm showing a misunderstanding of the subject being discussed.
Now when I suggest that taking people's licences away requires social
solutions which still allow them to function in society and keep their jobs,
I'm being too complicated and you think that this is not society's problem
and outside this discussion. Huh?

Certainly that reasonable but now you're going to have to define minimum
level of competence aren't you?

Agreed. Some countries do retraining by regular TV ads to tell people how to
get around a roundabout and general stuff like looking in mirrors. We don't.

I'm not sure what your demographic is John. People of my own demographic
(60+) tend to be less confident in themselves and more careful a a result.

The whole purpose of a test is to get people to fail. A test that doesn't
fail a significant percentage of people would be seen as meaningless and
probably unacceptable even to you. So your suggestion is to financially
penalise these people.

Society needs to provide these 'failures' a means of getting around. Sell up
and move to within 3 kms of your work is not a solution.

We'll leave that until we have defined minimum level of competence.

Red herring John.

I think I disagreed with you once. Is that when I stopped being sensible?

Nobody hands out licences John. There is a knowledge and a skills test.
Didn't you do one?

Before the invention of the motor car people didn't get around John. Sure,
some few people did, but most never got more than 10 kms from home. They
lived within walking distance of work, shops and entertainment. Now they
don't. We don't allow people to live near factories by zoning laws. We don't
alow them to live near city centres by property values. Most people in
cities travel at least a half hour and 20 kms to where they work. In Perth,
doing this by public transport today is, at the very least, inconvenient or
impossible. eg, I live a fair way out but can get to work in 45 mins. There
is no public transport option for me. The only bus stops here are for school
buses. So my option would be to sell the house.

How will you measure this quantitatively?

Theo