Dashcam captures moment elderly motorist goes the wrong way round a roundabout – and then reversed back again.
Driving instructor Paul Kilpatrick, 43, was stunned when the man, who is thought to have been in his 80s, slowly performed a three-point turn in the middle of the junction once he had realised his mistake.
tinyurl.com/hzqvne2 - The Sun.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-hV7ZRJ_Ls
|
>>Driving instructor Paul Kilpatrick, 43, was stunned when the man, who is thought to have been in his 80s, slowly performed a three-point turn in the middle of the junction once he had realised his mistake.
I would not have said "slowly performed a three point turn....once he had realsied his mistake."
He seem to recognise his mistake quite quickly
I thought he did his three point turn quite quickly.
He certainly left the scene at a good rate of knots.
Yes he make a serious mistake but there are many I would take the licence away from before him.
The driving instructor should visit my area and then he would really be stunned at the driving performances.
|
>> I thought he did his three point turn quite quickly.
He was reversing all over the place, not aware of what was around him at all. At one point I thought he was going to head back in the direction he first came from.
|
Had to be a jazz didn't it!
I'm always surprised that people end up the wrong way at mway junctions, roundabouts etc. The layout makes it a real effort to get it wrong. Mind you must be easy to get it wrong when your 80, happens a fair bit.
|
>>Mind you must be easy to get it wrong when your 80, happens a fair bit.
>>
You sound as if you have personal experience of driving at 80 years of age. I will let the pedants comment further.
|
>> I will let the pedants comment further.
>> >>Mind you must be easy to get it wrong when your 80,
"You're"; just sayin'.
|
My in-laws ( 80 and 76 ) are both truly appalling drivers. Not entirely age related, they have always been pretty dire. FIL has had numerous "accidents" throughout his life, thankfully nothing too serious but with monotonous regularity. MIL is a very nervous driver and treats every journey as a challenge, is completely unable to reverse and has minimal special awareness.
We have tried so hard to persuade them that it might be time to give up but they won't even though their annual mileage is now ( thankfully ) tiny.
It strikes me that there must be thousands like them and they are on our roads every day, I guess it just behoves the rest of us to be aware that they are.
I will feel terrible come the day I can't drive, so I can understand why people want to continue, but maybe some form of re-test based perhaps on age or maybe more usefully, accident/offence track record would be appropriate.
Tough one to judge actually, because for every one like them there will be at least as many who are totally competent.
|
>>maybe some form of re-test based perhaps on age or maybe more usefully, accident/offence track record would be appropriate.
The test itself, if we consider the current test, is not particularly related to the skills you need to drive.
And selecting someone on accident/offence record would be unreliable. It would entirely miss the ones who haven't had an accident *yet*, but who may well give up if they do.
I think a better physical / eyesight / awareness / non-doo-lally-ness test may make sense, but even then for every doo-lally 70 year old there's a perfectly able 90 year old.
Which is worse? To allow people who perhaps shouldn't drive to actually drive, or to prevent perfectly able and competent people from driving?
|
That is the nub of it of course. Like most motoring laws and regulations, they tend to default to lowest common denominators. It's a really tough call actually.
For example, and admittedly tangentially, common sense tells any experienced driver that a given speed limit may well be unreasonably slow given certain weather, traffic, ambient light and vehicle conditions while ten minutes later, due to a change in one of those or other factors, it might be unreasonably high but it remains the limit in all circumstances.
Similarly, the physical and mental condition of a driver is not always a given, someone who is feeling tired, or mildly unwell, or emotional will not be as safe as the same person who is feeling normal that day.
I certainly don't have the solution or even a proposal really, but I guess for now anyway, it stands us all in better stead just to remind ourselves constantly that not everyone we are sharing our roads with on a daily basis is guaranteed to drive predictably all the time and to give ourselves the space and time to avoid them when they don't.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Thu 9 Jun 16 at 13:39
|
>> someone
>> who is feeling, tired, or mildly unwell, or emotional
That IS my normal. I haven't crashed in 25 years.
|
>> Which is worse? To allow people who perhaps shouldn't drive to actually drive, or to
>> prevent perfectly able and competent people from driving?
Presumably they had that in mind when setting the minimum driving age.
|
There was a woman in her 80's who recently went the wrong way up the A12. She has since given up her license but the fact she missed a double no entry sign and a painted sign clearly shows as you get older you become less aware.
I think the elderly should have regular tests if they want to keep their licenses.
After all when machinery gets old it gets tested, cars have MOT's and need services, planes have overhauls at regular intervals - so why not people?
As my dad gets older (74) he is driving slower - not unsafely, dodderingly slow but a little slower for my taste (I'm often pressing the invisible accelerator when sitting in the passenger seat). I often laugh at these stories about olds driving badly but not sure I'd see the funny side if it happened to me old dad. As he creeps ever closer to his 80's I'd be more comfortable knowing he'd been tested for faculties and overall health.
|
To further complicate matters, it's not just about old age either is it? Plenty of middle aged people whose eyesight for example isn't what it was. It might still be strictly speaking legal for driving but way below good.
Not sure there is much of a solution other than what I mentioned above in so far as reminding ourselves constantly that the roads will also contain those who may not be fully on top of their driving at all times.
|
>> cars have MOT's
>>
>>
Not when they are very old - they get exemptions :)
|
I'd hardly call pre 1960 that old!
I did argue for an earlier date, and suggested 1940 although much good that did!
|
>> I'd hardly call pre 1960 that old!
>>
>> I did argue for an earlier date, and suggested 1940 although much good that did!
>>
I was involved with that consultation too and I suggested 1945.
|
|
In terms of technology, identical. Pretty well all 1946 models were the 1939 ones... My grandfather was 'lucky' enough to buy one and wished he hadn't. Horrid thing apparently!
|
>> I think a better physical / eyesight / awareness / non-doo-lally-ness test may make sense,
>> but even then for every doo-lally 70 year old there's a perfectly able 90 year
>> old.
Locally, license is renewed every 5 years, and there's a compulsory eyetest.
A step in the right direction?
|
|
I recently suffered much horn honking and arm waving from a youngster (about 40) in a pickup. It seems I was in the wrong because I followed the road signs and markings and ended up where he wanted to be, he ignored five signs and several gallons of white paint. Maybe disqualifying idiots would be the best option.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 9 Jun 16 at 14:59
|
>> a pickup.
That was your problem, right there.
|
|
Beestling Minor had a thing for the Mitsubishi L200; thought we should have one. He'd thought better of it by the time he was 12; seems some never do.
|
Tend to agree AV, most "oldies" drive steady as she goes, sometimes they are the 40mph everywhere brigade but by and large they're predictable. Some of course, maybe I should say the majority in fact, are absolutely fine.
The ones I keep an especially wary eye on are young men in vans, ( testosterone overload combined with grey matter deficit? ) young women in small hatchbacks ( on the phone or texting mainly ) and pickup trucks. (wannabe rednecks?)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Thu 9 Jun 16 at 15:18
|
Reminds me of that "oldie" - Man phones wifey as she's driving home, "Be careful on the Motorway dear, I've just heard on the News that there's an idiot driving the wrong way"!
She replies, "you should be here! there's hundreds of them"!
|
|
There was a very well filmed scene in this week's episode of Gomorra (highly recommended Italian series, subtitled, now in series 2 with the finale next Wednesday - available on Sky Atlantic catch up) in which two cars (Peugeot 2008 and BMW 3 series since you asked) tear down the wrong way of a Neapolitan motorway. Obviously staged for TV but very well done - although I expect a standard Naples driver would be very well equipped to deal with what is probably a fairly frequent occurrence in those parts, if my experience of driving in that, er, interesting city is anything to go by.
|
>> >> a pickup.
>> That was your problem, right there.
I haven't noticed pickups being driven worse than anything else.
I like them myself, good useful rugged vehicles, some quite refined and competent.
You get some rude half-wits in all categories of car, seems to me. We all have prejudices but it's not good to give them free rein. Better to be restrained and courteous from all points of view.
|
I'm reminded of Jasper Carrott's "mother-in-law" skit, where he says, "She's never had an accident.... but she's seen hundreds".
We've had this discussion about elderly drivers many times before; fact remains that as we get older we become more aware of the fact that our faculties as a driver deteriorate in inverse proportion to our dependence on the car, especially those of us in rural areas.
I'm in favour of five-yearly eye tests, from age 50; which I'm sure our learned GP friend Lygonos will confirm is about the age when ones eyesight does begin to deteriorate markedly. No eye test certificate, no licence renewal, simple as that. Vocational drivers have to do it, why shouldn't everyone else?
|
>> I'm in favour of five-yearly eye tests, from age 50;
>> which I'm sure our learned GP friend Lygonos will confirm is about the age
>> when ones eyesight does begin to deteriorate markedly.
>> No eye test certificate, no licence renewal, simple as that.
>>Vocational drivers have to do it, why shouldn't everyone else?
>>
I would insist on a proper eye test when you start to drive and then every five years.
It is a crazy situation allowing poor sighted people of any age behind the wheel.
I was experiencing problems working on documents in low light situations on night flights back from the USA. I went to an opticians and he said it was normal for 45 year old white folk to need glasses.
IIRC the start of cataracts causes glare at night and I suspect that is one of the main reasons old folk avoid driving at night.
SWMBO recounts that when she went for her test, I asked her to read the number plate of a car parked near the test centre.
You might guess that the test guy came out with her and asked her to read said plate before she left.
|
The authorities missed a trick with eyesight testing, I think we should have optician testing with a brief report sent to DVLA at initial provisional licence application and then every five years. I wear glasses and have my eyes tested annually because of a degenerative problem which will not become a problem because of my age. I ask the optician about driving and the reply has always been that I am within spec without glasses. This surprises me, although I am comfortable driving without glasses long range road signs and the instruments would be a problem. I suspect the authorities shy away from routine testing as it would disqualify too many drivers (voters).
In the USA some states have an eyesight testing machine on the counter of the annual renewal office, no pass, no licence. No doubt the standard is low.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 10 Jun 16 at 09:00
|
I suspect the authorities shy away from routine testing as it would disqualify too many drivers (voters).
Could be - or it could be that they reckon the cost of a relatively small number of accidents is less than the administrative burden of requiring an eyesight check. Yes, the driver would pay for the test itself, but we'd still need new systems and administrators to match everything up.
I suspect only a few drivers would be eliminated altogether. The ones to catch are those who didn't need glasses when younger, so have never got into a routine of regular eye checks and have not noticed the gradual deterioration. Most of the sight defects found would be correctable with the right lenses.
|
|
They need attitude tests for younger drivers and perception tests for older. Everything else is pretty unimportant and you just pick it up as you go along.
|
|
But is "I didn't see you" caused by lack of observation skills or poor eyesight?
|
As I recently hit the big Six Zero birthday wishes came from the DVLA and a request to renew my C1 HGV licence. This also comes with a medical requirement, part of which is an eyesight test.
I havent driven large vehicles for a very long time but wanted to keep my licence so subjected myself to the medical process. My eyesight has deteriorated with age and I do have glasses but prefer not to use them and am happy that my eyesight is good enough for driving and riding ( I know people will think that's what everyone says )
The HGV requirement was changed to a higher standard than cars/motorcycles and due to an error completing the form I had another communcation from DVLA, not pointing out the error filling in the form regarding a declaration made as to how I achieved the standard with corrected or uncorrected eyesight when it was obvious I had worn specs to achieve perfect vision, but indicating that as I had originally obtained the licence under the old eyesight standards with uncorrected eyesight providing I could evidence driving C1 on 3 occasions within last 12 months they would re issue licence. If not I could surrender that licence category.
Once I realised that this was motivated to the incorrect completion of the form a quick letter from my GP acknowledging the error sorted the issue. I now have a requirement to wear specs on my licence when driving C1 categories. Fair enough.
My point is however that if I was a regular driver there would have been no requirement to achieve the higher standard. In my opinion you either can or cannot achieve the eyesight requirements so showing you are driving regularly should not impact on that.
|
I now have a
>> requirement to wear specs on my licence when driving C1 categories. Fair enough.
I don't think it is fair enough. In fact, it's farcical; not getting at you Fullchat but it's ridiculous for DVLA to suggest that one's eyesight improves once one gets out of a 7.5 tonne truck and gets into a car. Which effectively is what they're saying.
|
Indeed. But it seems the eyesight standards to drive a truck are higher than a car. Dont know why? Presumably because a large truck needs a higher set of skills and potentially can do more damage.
What I found ironic was the fact that if I was a regular driver I did not have to wear specs at this point in time. Whereas I would now on the potential rare occasion of me driving a truck.
Nevertheless you would think eyesight standards would be the same across the board. You can either have vision to a standard or you havent.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 10 Jun 16 at 17:47
|
|
And what will you do? Go with the commonsense idea that you should be wearing glasses whenever you drive or simply go by the letter of the law?
|
>> But is "I didn't see you" caused by lack of observation skills or poor eyesight?
>>
It doesn't matter. There could be a simple practical test, either in a car or a simulator, and "You didn't see it" would be a Fail. The driver would then go away and have whatever tests, glasses, etc were necessary and try again. A second fail would be off the road.
|
Time to give up your licence fella - henry k
