Given that a large proportion of oufits are above the 3500kg weight limit, even though the weighed load may be less, could the industry start to lobby for those reaching 70 years to move to a system where they submit the detailed medical disclsure at 70 and then for the next 2 years do what they normally do for the standard driving licence medical disclosure. Given that HM government see everyone working longer due to increased life expectancy it seems illogical to keep the existing system. So an alterntive could be set until say 76 and then move to biennal full disclosure until 80! That should cater for most veteran vanners.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Should the 3500kg limit be changed for over 70s?
- Thread starter otherclive
- Start date
To be quite honest I'm in favour of some sort of competancey test/assessment perhaps say every 5 years upto 70 and then bi-annually after that.
Now I'm no spring chicken at the half centuary, and arguably there are plenty of folks who at 70 are still fit for the road. I have an uncle who at 84 years young, still tows his vintage tractors on trailers behind his 4X4 pickup, and does so perfectly well.
But there are an awfull lot who are way younger and drive very poorly.
The current legislation of restricting the over 70's to 3500Kgs gross train weight, actually encourages them to try to use lighter tow cars to tow their existing caravans. In practice it takes a higher level of alertness and concentration when towing trailers that are heavier than the tow vehicle. I've had first hand experience of this when towing 3500Kg trailers behind a Diahatsu F70 4X4.
Now I'm no spring chicken at the half centuary, and arguably there are plenty of folks who at 70 are still fit for the road. I have an uncle who at 84 years young, still tows his vintage tractors on trailers behind his 4X4 pickup, and does so perfectly well.
But there are an awfull lot who are way younger and drive very poorly.
The current legislation of restricting the over 70's to 3500Kgs gross train weight, actually encourages them to try to use lighter tow cars to tow their existing caravans. In practice it takes a higher level of alertness and concentration when towing trailers that are heavier than the tow vehicle. I've had first hand experience of this when towing 3500Kg trailers behind a Diahatsu F70 4X4.
As they are moving everything else back because of the excuse that we are all living longer then it would make sense to do the same with the towing limit. I suspect originally the law was not designed to affect older caravanners but as caravans and cars have got heavier they have fallen into that category. It should be sufficient to submit your last eye test and prove that you have attended your doctors surgery well person clinic rather than having to under go an expensive medical. It would be far better to raise the weight limit to 4000kgs and move the medical testing to 75.
David
David
The problem is that the weight limits for driving licences have been harmonised throughout the EU so any changes to to these limits would also have to be agreed to on an EU basis. However, age limits are still left to each country's own discretion. Surprising as it may seem, there is no age limit whatsoever on driving licences here in Germany.
I was referring to driving licence harmonisation which only mentions weight limits and is not specific with regard to vehicle dimensions. Frankly, however, even over here on the Continent where there is probably more opportunity to get from A to B on roads which are better suited to such big caravans, they are not much joy to tow as tourers. Most people that have them tend to tow less frequently and when they do, use motorways as much as possible.Surfer said:
Hi,
First On Topic ..... I understand that there are some Land Rover LWB Estates that have a MGW in excess of 3500kg. So my B+E (over 70) licence prevents me from driving them, period.
Then Off Topic ..... a Land Rover Discovery has an ULW of about 2000kg, so MGW must be pretty high too. Somebody with a B licence wil be very restricted on what they can tow, so will have to find a lighter car to pull their big caravan. A Discovery can pull 3500kgs.
Conflicting logic ..... but I can't see them changing it.
602
First On Topic ..... I understand that there are some Land Rover LWB Estates that have a MGW in excess of 3500kg. So my B+E (over 70) licence prevents me from driving them, period.
Then Off Topic ..... a Land Rover Discovery has an ULW of about 2000kg, so MGW must be pretty high too. Somebody with a B licence wil be very restricted on what they can tow, so will have to find a lighter car to pull their big caravan. A Discovery can pull 3500kgs.
Conflicting logic ..... but I can't see them changing it.
602
Thanks for this information, clearly I was sold a bit of a steer on this one. Look forward to many more years witha lump of a towcar!!
I for one would not like to see the law on this changed, There are enough doddering old idiots on the road who should have given up driving long ago, as there reaction times are not able to cope with the speed of moden traffic conditions, see it every day. I like Steve would welcome some sort of monitoring every 5 years.for all drivers.
Now before I get jumped on for my opening statment,I am no spring chicken myself and I do also acknowledge there are idiots of both sexes and of all ages.but on the whole the younger driver is more alert with faster reactions than older drivers.
I would rather be a passanger in my 20 year old sons car than my 82 year old uncles car.
Now before I get jumped on for my opening statment,I am no spring chicken myself and I do also acknowledge there are idiots of both sexes and of all ages.but on the whole the younger driver is more alert with faster reactions than older drivers.
I would rather be a passanger in my 20 year old sons car than my 82 year old uncles car.
Rubbish.
I am a clay shooter and I shoot with people of all ages and it's my experience that there is very little difference in reaction speed with regards to age. Some people have very slow reactions and some are very quick, in fact I regularly shoot with a man in his eighties whose reactions are extremely fast. The main trouble with poor driving IMHO is more to do with selfishness and plain stupidity.
Steve W
I am a clay shooter and I shoot with people of all ages and it's my experience that there is very little difference in reaction speed with regards to age. Some people have very slow reactions and some are very quick, in fact I regularly shoot with a man in his eighties whose reactions are extremely fast. The main trouble with poor driving IMHO is more to do with selfishness and plain stupidity.
Steve W
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with age and everything to do with ability. The criteria might as well be about the colour of someone's skin...........oh wait, that's illegal 'cos it's racism. Well this is ageism.
I know plenty of people in their 20's who shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel, and not because they're boy-racers, because they're incompetent. Plain and simple clueless about driving.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority have absolutely no choice about driving since public transport doesn't work/is too expensive/is unreliable etc. Unless you're a city dweller then living without a car is way too difficult. The old boy nextdoor (who is 85 as it goes) still drives, very safely too but only because we have one bus a week. Yes, that's right, one per week. He has always said he'd rather use the bus but it simply isn't an option. Living on a pension he doesn't want the running costs of a car but whet's the alternative?? More to the point, how many more people feel like this?
So before spouting off about doddery old fools and other discriminatory stereotypes, remember 2 things. 1. Most of them don't have any realistic options other than driving and 2. Ability has nothing to do with age, it's just a convenient target for bigots to attack.
Nuff said.
Dom.
I know plenty of people in their 20's who shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel, and not because they're boy-racers, because they're incompetent. Plain and simple clueless about driving.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority have absolutely no choice about driving since public transport doesn't work/is too expensive/is unreliable etc. Unless you're a city dweller then living without a car is way too difficult. The old boy nextdoor (who is 85 as it goes) still drives, very safely too but only because we have one bus a week. Yes, that's right, one per week. He has always said he'd rather use the bus but it simply isn't an option. Living on a pension he doesn't want the running costs of a car but whet's the alternative?? More to the point, how many more people feel like this?
So before spouting off about doddery old fools and other discriminatory stereotypes, remember 2 things. 1. Most of them don't have any realistic options other than driving and 2. Ability has nothing to do with age, it's just a convenient target for bigots to attack.
Nuff said.
Dom.
The only way to avoid this discrimination, as you call it, and yet still ensure that all drivers continue to meet minimum standards of ability would be to make all driving licences valid for only 5 years or so and make everyone take a test again before renewal. I can imagine the outcry against that, if only because of the costs involved.
Hello steve w77
"Rubbish"?? well perhaps it is but not for the reasons you give.
I'm sorry but your personal experience goes counter to virtually all studies that have been carried out on age vs reaction times.
To be fair, Clay pigeon shooting is a sport where reaction times are important, but It becomes a skill with a learned response because the process is repetitive and controlled. Basically you know what's going to happen and you can prepare both physically and mentally for it, and its not going to surprise you.
A simple study carried out by a school, asked a mixture of people to undertake a reaction time test. without prior knowledge the test consisted of a hanging metre rule in a remote controlled quick release clamp. The candidate held their hand just below the rule and was instructed to catch the rule when it was released. The rule was released by an unknown person whom the candidate could not see so there was no precognition of the release point.
A sample of 94 people aged from 10 to 99 undertook the test. Only one attempt each was allowed to avoid any skill or learned response in the task developing. The distance the rule dropped before it was caught was recorded.
The results were averaged for each decade of age.
AGE Ave Drop Min Max
10-19 28.5 26.1 31.0
20-29 11.4 4.8 20.3
30-39 13.3 6.2 19.0
40-49 15.4 10.6 20.7
50-59 19.5 14.1 30.9
60-69 22.7 19.7 27.0
70-79 24.4 20.4 28.0
80-89 25.0 21.3 27.5
90-99 27.3 26.1 28.6
Interpreting the results - As the rule was dropping due to gravity it was accelerating. A recorded distance of 20cm did not take twice as long as a recorded distance of 10cm, so the results are stretched out and the differences appear larger than they actually are. The measurement in cm whilst not a linear time measurement it did at least rank the reaction times.
Even allowing for the fact the sample size is relatively small a clear trend displayed:-
There is a rapid improvement in reaction times as candidates moved from childhood to adulthood. The fastest response times occurred in early adulthood, and progressively deteriorated with increasing age.
These results closely mirror other professional studies found on the WWW
This was a simple single response test, and it should not be considered fully indicative of a persons ability to drive.
Driving involves dealing with a complex collection of learned responses such as steering, accelerating, changing gears, braking as you approach a junction etc, and a range of less practised emergency responses to unusual situations as they arise. They are complex because not only do you not know when they are going to happen, but you don't know what is going to happen. You have to respond quickly, but you often have to make choices on how to respond. so driving relies on a combination of reaction and cognitive abilities which can be modified by experience.
Age related experience can also modify a persons driving habits. It is widely recognised that the older you are the more aware you are of potential dangers of driving, so older people tend to drive more defensively and as such avoiding situations that might catch a less experienced driver out. Older drivers also have greater range of avoidance strategies to call on, so when an unforeseen event arises the response of an older drive may be more measured and successful than a younger drivers.
None of this is black and white, end eventually reaction times or other medical conditions may render older drivers a greater risk.
"Rubbish"?? well perhaps it is but not for the reasons you give.
I'm sorry but your personal experience goes counter to virtually all studies that have been carried out on age vs reaction times.
To be fair, Clay pigeon shooting is a sport where reaction times are important, but It becomes a skill with a learned response because the process is repetitive and controlled. Basically you know what's going to happen and you can prepare both physically and mentally for it, and its not going to surprise you.
A simple study carried out by a school, asked a mixture of people to undertake a reaction time test. without prior knowledge the test consisted of a hanging metre rule in a remote controlled quick release clamp. The candidate held their hand just below the rule and was instructed to catch the rule when it was released. The rule was released by an unknown person whom the candidate could not see so there was no precognition of the release point.
A sample of 94 people aged from 10 to 99 undertook the test. Only one attempt each was allowed to avoid any skill or learned response in the task developing. The distance the rule dropped before it was caught was recorded.
The results were averaged for each decade of age.
AGE Ave Drop Min Max
10-19 28.5 26.1 31.0
20-29 11.4 4.8 20.3
30-39 13.3 6.2 19.0
40-49 15.4 10.6 20.7
50-59 19.5 14.1 30.9
60-69 22.7 19.7 27.0
70-79 24.4 20.4 28.0
80-89 25.0 21.3 27.5
90-99 27.3 26.1 28.6
Interpreting the results - As the rule was dropping due to gravity it was accelerating. A recorded distance of 20cm did not take twice as long as a recorded distance of 10cm, so the results are stretched out and the differences appear larger than they actually are. The measurement in cm whilst not a linear time measurement it did at least rank the reaction times.
Even allowing for the fact the sample size is relatively small a clear trend displayed:-
There is a rapid improvement in reaction times as candidates moved from childhood to adulthood. The fastest response times occurred in early adulthood, and progressively deteriorated with increasing age.
These results closely mirror other professional studies found on the WWW
This was a simple single response test, and it should not be considered fully indicative of a persons ability to drive.
Driving involves dealing with a complex collection of learned responses such as steering, accelerating, changing gears, braking as you approach a junction etc, and a range of less practised emergency responses to unusual situations as they arise. They are complex because not only do you not know when they are going to happen, but you don't know what is going to happen. You have to respond quickly, but you often have to make choices on how to respond. so driving relies on a combination of reaction and cognitive abilities which can be modified by experience.
Age related experience can also modify a persons driving habits. It is widely recognised that the older you are the more aware you are of potential dangers of driving, so older people tend to drive more defensively and as such avoiding situations that might catch a less experienced driver out. Older drivers also have greater range of avoidance strategies to call on, so when an unforeseen event arises the response of an older drive may be more measured and successful than a younger drivers.
None of this is black and white, end eventually reaction times or other medical conditions may render older drivers a greater risk.
because the process is repetitive and controlled. Basically you know what's going to happen and you can prepare both physically and mentally for it, and its not going to surprise you.
You have obviously never tried clay shooting, and you certainly cannot learn or prepare for the target when game or rough shooting.
In the test you related, the participants were told exactly what was going to happen, the only variant was when, not exactly a comprehensive test of reaction times
You have obviously never tried clay shooting, and you certainly cannot learn or prepare for the target when game or rough shooting.
In the test you related, the participants were told exactly what was going to happen, the only variant was when, not exactly a comprehensive test of reaction times
Steve,
I am not trying to belittle shooting, though I may not agree with it as a sport.
Specifically you only related your experience to clay shooting. I agree there is a greater degree of unknown with game and shooting, but I still maintain that the process is still relatively well known by the participants,and there is great repetiveness so the skill can be quickly learnt.
I made it quite clear the school test was not conclusive but it does mirror proffesional results.
I am not trying to belittle shooting, though I may not agree with it as a sport.
Specifically you only related your experience to clay shooting. I agree there is a greater degree of unknown with game and shooting, but I still maintain that the process is still relatively well known by the participants,and there is great repetiveness so the skill can be quickly learnt.
I made it quite clear the school test was not conclusive but it does mirror proffesional results.
Lutz said:
I almost agree. Re-testing is probably overkill but medical examinations and eye tests should be mandatory. Perhaps a computer based reaction test would be appropriate as well. As for the cost, I pay £80 for my 5 yearly HGV medical and don't complain about that. I see it as perfectly reasonable to ensure I am medically fit to get behind the wheel.
I agree that a mandatory physical, eye & hearing test every 5 yrs would without a doubt improve the standard of driving if it could be implemented and effectively policed. We all know that there is an ever increasing number unlicensed and uninsured drivers on our roads. Not helped by the ridiculous premiums demanded by the insurance companies to cover young drivers, who, unable to pay the sky high premiums just don't bother with insurance. Their reaction speed needs to be quick, as they are constantly driving with one eye on the mirror trying to avoid any situation that would bring them to the attention of the authorities.
Steve W
Steve W
Well I think the system of quality control of drivers of all ages needs looking at.
My late father-in-law towed caravans and toured Scotland with us at the ripe age of 75. He towed perfectly fine and was a very safe driver. Yet one of my inlaws couldn't reverse a trailer to save his life, he even managed to burn (and I mean burn) out a clutch in his diesel sedona trying to reverse a 16ft caravan weighing 1300Kgs!
At the moment and driver with a pre 1997 license can tow trailers behind cars, vans and even a 7 1/2 ton truck and go upto a max of 8'250Kgs in the case of the truck, without any form of assessment at all.
Yesterday I came almighty close to writing off my daughters Megane. I was driving quite legitimately at 60 mph when a big Merc sprinter van towing a 16ft Ifor Williams trailer pulled out of a side road from stationary, with me only being 200yards away. I hit the brakes which brought the ABS in which worked very well, but I also had to crash the gearbox to 2nd gear to miss the idiot! I missed him by about 6". Now for those who don't know, merc sprinter van can go upto 5500Kgs gross train. This one was fully loaded with a huge marquee and the trailer had the aluminium poles on it. Also the poles overhung the back of the trailer by at least 4ft and didn't even have an old rag tied on for safety. If it had, it would of valeted my windscreen because the car was 6" off the trailer. There was no excuse for the attempted drag strip start by the van because he can see at least 1/4 mile up the road I was travelling on. Fortunately for me, as I know the road, I was already off the gas and hovering on the brake pedal just incase the berk didn't see a fire engine red meganne.
Now rather than resort to neandathol man and shove his trailer where the sun doesn't shine at the next opportunity, I calmly phoned the home number on the back of the van and got to speak to a very weary MD of the firm. (I'd got him out of beddy by's). I explained what had happened and made it very clear that should the driver do that again I would not be ringing the firm, I would report the driver direct to the police. To be fair the MD did get the driver to ring me and appologise and apparently the driver has recieved a final written warning over tha incident. (so I was told by a very sheepish driver).
But I think that incident realy demonstrates why all drivers should be assessed periodically. Because at present a dozy fool can be at the wheel of the van and had there of been the same in the red car, there would of been an accident.
I'm no saint myself and have made mistakes on the road, but I do think there needs to be a consistant across the age range assessment type of test done periodically. At least then people won't let their guard down so frequently.
My late father-in-law towed caravans and toured Scotland with us at the ripe age of 75. He towed perfectly fine and was a very safe driver. Yet one of my inlaws couldn't reverse a trailer to save his life, he even managed to burn (and I mean burn) out a clutch in his diesel sedona trying to reverse a 16ft caravan weighing 1300Kgs!
At the moment and driver with a pre 1997 license can tow trailers behind cars, vans and even a 7 1/2 ton truck and go upto a max of 8'250Kgs in the case of the truck, without any form of assessment at all.
Yesterday I came almighty close to writing off my daughters Megane. I was driving quite legitimately at 60 mph when a big Merc sprinter van towing a 16ft Ifor Williams trailer pulled out of a side road from stationary, with me only being 200yards away. I hit the brakes which brought the ABS in which worked very well, but I also had to crash the gearbox to 2nd gear to miss the idiot! I missed him by about 6". Now for those who don't know, merc sprinter van can go upto 5500Kgs gross train. This one was fully loaded with a huge marquee and the trailer had the aluminium poles on it. Also the poles overhung the back of the trailer by at least 4ft and didn't even have an old rag tied on for safety. If it had, it would of valeted my windscreen because the car was 6" off the trailer. There was no excuse for the attempted drag strip start by the van because he can see at least 1/4 mile up the road I was travelling on. Fortunately for me, as I know the road, I was already off the gas and hovering on the brake pedal just incase the berk didn't see a fire engine red meganne.
Now rather than resort to neandathol man and shove his trailer where the sun doesn't shine at the next opportunity, I calmly phoned the home number on the back of the van and got to speak to a very weary MD of the firm. (I'd got him out of beddy by's). I explained what had happened and made it very clear that should the driver do that again I would not be ringing the firm, I would report the driver direct to the police. To be fair the MD did get the driver to ring me and appologise and apparently the driver has recieved a final written warning over tha incident. (so I was told by a very sheepish driver).
But I think that incident realy demonstrates why all drivers should be assessed periodically. Because at present a dozy fool can be at the wheel of the van and had there of been the same in the red car, there would of been an accident.
I'm no saint myself and have made mistakes on the road, but I do think there needs to be a consistant across the age range assessment type of test done periodically. At least then people won't let their guard down so frequently.
Hello Steve,
This must be a rare occasion, when I'm not about to disagree with you
.
I agree, I think our current driving licence arrangements leave a lot to be desired.
It is widely accepted even in some of the most mundane jobs that regular updating and reassessment is essential, but private driving seems to be viewed as a right rather than a privilege.
It is potentially the case that a driver may pass their test at aged 17, and may not undergo any sort of reassessment of any kind until they are 70 that's 53 years of developing bad habits, and not being updated about new regulations or changes to driving conditions. In theory, a 17 year old may pass their test, and not get into a driving seat again until they are 69!
I know that during my driving life time, that traffic densities have radically increased, and that new regulations have been introduced often with little or no publicity. I am also certain that drivers are generally more aggressive these days. I have also noted a rebellious tendency - In our area it is quite common to see 10% or more of drivers without a seatbelt, and a similar number with a phone to their ear.
A licence to drive should be based on a drivers proven ability by a regular test of knowledge and driving skill. However as we know some drivers will drive carefully for a test, but then ditch all the care and attention as soon as the test is over.
And this does nothing to deter the drivers who are just having a bad day or who are really too tired, drugged up or hungover and should not be driving.
This must be a rare occasion, when I'm not about to disagree with you
I agree, I think our current driving licence arrangements leave a lot to be desired.
It is widely accepted even in some of the most mundane jobs that regular updating and reassessment is essential, but private driving seems to be viewed as a right rather than a privilege.
It is potentially the case that a driver may pass their test at aged 17, and may not undergo any sort of reassessment of any kind until they are 70 that's 53 years of developing bad habits, and not being updated about new regulations or changes to driving conditions. In theory, a 17 year old may pass their test, and not get into a driving seat again until they are 69!
I know that during my driving life time, that traffic densities have radically increased, and that new regulations have been introduced often with little or no publicity. I am also certain that drivers are generally more aggressive these days. I have also noted a rebellious tendency - In our area it is quite common to see 10% or more of drivers without a seatbelt, and a similar number with a phone to their ear.
A licence to drive should be based on a drivers proven ability by a regular test of knowledge and driving skill. However as we know some drivers will drive carefully for a test, but then ditch all the care and attention as soon as the test is over.
And this does nothing to deter the drivers who are just having a bad day or who are really too tired, drugged up or hungover and should not be driving.
It's nice to see we share common ground John, and that's what a good debate is all about.
I am very concious about drug driving in my current state, as I take just about every strong prescription only oral pain killer there is with my back in the state it is. I have spoken to my GP about the tablets and advised him of the side affects of the amitriptyline in particular as I get very lucid nightmares from those. He didn't seem peturbed though and simply said don't drive at night after taking them.
I would rather leave them out altogether if I know I'm gona be driving at all.
Your also right in your perception of the bad habits of drivers. I saw one chap the other day using his elbows to steer while texting on his mobile, and he was on the M5!!
I am very concious about drug driving in my current state, as I take just about every strong prescription only oral pain killer there is with my back in the state it is. I have spoken to my GP about the tablets and advised him of the side affects of the amitriptyline in particular as I get very lucid nightmares from those. He didn't seem peturbed though and simply said don't drive at night after taking them.
I would rather leave them out altogether if I know I'm gona be driving at all.
Your also right in your perception of the bad habits of drivers. I saw one chap the other day using his elbows to steer while texting on his mobile, and he was on the M5!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Do new caravans come with Al-Ko locks?
- Started by Flatteraxe
- Replies: 27
-
Mandatory eye tests for drivers over 70 being proposed by HMG. Good or bad?- Started by Dustydog
- Replies: 230
-
