Grumpy Old Chook

One of the TV reports last night carried the news that the suggestion has been made that drivers over the age of 65 should have to undergo yearly driving tests in order to retain their licences. Of course, such calls are nothing new, but the report made it sound as if the Powers That Be are giving it some serious consideration.

My reactions are a bit mixed. For a start, I really believe that EVERY driver should have to undergo regular testing – maybe every five years or so. I think it is quite ridiculous that someone could have obtained a driving licence twenty, thirty or fifty years ago, when road rules, vehicle performance and driving conditions were very different from today, and never be tested again. Yes, I would hate it – it would be a total pain in the rump – but I believe that it would make the roads far safer. I would even go so far as to suggest that the time between such tests should be shortened as the licencee gets older.

However, I am absolutely infuriated by the suggestion that such tests should be applied ONLY to older drivers … at even more so at the idea (obviously proposed by someone aged around thirty) that such tests should begin at age 65. Get real! This is 2010, not 1910! Most 65 year-olds these days are bright, energetic people who carry a work load – whether paid or voluntary – as great as or greater than people many years younger. The government is even planning to push out the age at which people qualify for the Age Pension to 67.

The argument is that older drivers’ reflexes are not as quick as those of the young. True, but that is more than offset by the fact that most older drivers have a far greater level of experience, which allows them to anticipate problems more readily than their young counterparts, and therefore not need to react so quickly.

Yes, some older drivers have medical conditions that impinge upon their driving ability – but they don’t even begin to compare with the number of younger drivers who compromise their ability with drink or drugs. For that matter, there are also plenty of younger drivers who are affected by medical conditions or pharmaceutical drugs. Anyone who has such problems should avoid getting behind the wheel, not just those who are over 65.

It is always possible for the proponents of such schemes to point to older drivers who have been involved in fatal accidents – but there are far more such accidents involving the young. Most older drivers are not likely to do burnouts when taking off from traffic lights, or stage drag races in suburban streets.

In my case, I have been driving since I was 18 – over 40 years. In the early years I had a few bingles, mostly caused by stupidity and lack of experience. But in the past 25 years I have not had as much as a parking ticket – and I use my car quite a bit, including the occasional 5,000 km round trip to Queensland from Victoria. At nearly 60, I am very definitely a far better driver than I was at 20 or 30.

(I was involved in one accident about 20 years ago – a young woman drove out of an access road [from which she should have given way], through a stop sign [meaning she should have given way] on my left [meaning she should have given way] and drove into the side of my car!)

So, whilst I do think ALL drivers should be retested on a regular basis, in regard to this present push I say LAY OFF THE SENIORS! 65 is not old, and “old” is not necessarily “decrepit.”

This blog is © Lynn Fowler

Comments are closed.