Editorial: Keeping elderly safe on the road

Opinion

Seeking a coherent strand in the Government's road-safety policy is a frustrating exercise. Its approach juxtaposes a vigilance bordering on the obsessive in the matter of relatively minor speed infringements with a reluctance to grapple with the dangers inherent in drivers' cellphone use. Now, to add to the mixed message, the Transport Safety Minister has confirmed that, from next December, people over 80 will no longer have to take a mandatory practical driving test.

The announcement has, of course, been applauded by the elderly. Many regard the driving licence as a symbol of independence, and felt discriminated against when the test was introduced six years ago. Many others in that age group, however, have recognised their waning skills and, with commendable responsibility, settled for the passenger seat. For some, the necessity to sit a practical test was actually the spur for acknowledging the frailties that come with age.

Nonetheless, the dogged opposition of many elderly drivers prompted an election-year pledge by the Prime Minister to abolish the test. This received far from universal acclamation. At least parties boasting experience in the area and impartiality raised concerns. First, the insurance industry pointed to statistics that revealed the over-80s were the highest risk group for driver accidents after the group aged under 25. The elderly figure particularly in the rate for minor accidents - the sort of low-impact collisions that keep panel-beaters in work. They are not, contrary to the message implicit in the Government's test decision, particularly safe drivers.

Doctors also had their doubts. Once the test goes, it will be they who decide whether an elderly person should hold a driver's licence. Yet, as they pointed out, their examinations can assess only the likes of eyesight. They cannot test a person's practical skills or mental approach to driving.

These criticisms should have caused the Government to pause, and to consider an alternative approach. There was room for some compromise. In the same way that restricted licences recognise the limited skills of young drivers, the elderly could have been given conditional licences. Thus, in return for a relatively simple test, over-80 drivers could, for example, have been limited to roads in their neighbourhood.

But the Government's response has been to throw even more responsibility on one of the critics. Doctors, it says, will be required to administer stricter examinations every two years to determine driver suitability. "The medical tests will be more appropriate, and they will be toughened up to look at the sorts of issues that impact on over-80s driving," said Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven. Given the shortcomings already identified by the medical profession, this amounts to little more than an ineffectual sop. If it is intended to satisfy those concerned about the safety of all road users, it fails miserably.

Ultimately, there was no real need to do away with the practical test. As much as the elderly grumbled about the stress associated with it, the vast majority passed after one or more attempts. Only those with serious deficiencies did not find their way back behind the wheel.

In the interests of road safety, tests for drivers, both beginners and those at the other end of the spectrum, should be rigorous affairs. Quite rightly, we do not give young drivers a licence without assessing their practical ability. Nor should we grant that privilege for those in the next-highest accident-risk group.