KEY POINTS:
A few months ago, an old man died aged 86. A week or two before his death, the police confiscated his driver's licence after the old man had left the scene of an accident totally unaware he had collided with a car which had right of way.
In keeping with his increasingly irascible personality - patience and tolerance were never among his virtues - there was a vehement argument with the police as to whether there was justification for the confiscation of his licence.
As the old man's son, I can say he should have lost his licence at least 15 years ago.
It is sad but true that bad driving is not confined to the "boy racer" end of the age continuum; older drivers can arguably be just as hazardous.
Even disregarding the effects of age, men of my father's generation learned to drive - and did most of their driving - when the world was a quite different and very much slower place.
Although my father sensibly avoided motorways from about 1985, I recall exasperating attempts in the 1970s to convince him that one was supposed to speed up rather than slow down on a motorway onramp.
And where the onramp joined the motorway proper was not in fact an "intersection" as he insisted.
Among my father's papers was a diary in which he had recorded his anxiety at facing, and somewhat astonished relief at passing, the most recent driving test a few months before losing his licence.
Had he not lived in a provincial town where he was well known and well regarded, I very much suspect he would have failed his regular test many years ago.
The regular driving tests my father faced are to be no more - and the roads will be much more dangerous as a result.
Although there can never be a legal excuse for dangerous overtaking, who reading this has not performed a risky or even dangerous overtaking manoeuvre, having been stuck behind an elderly driver doing 75km/h on clear open road?
Who has not encountered older drivers sailing blithely through Stop or Give Way signs while appearing to be completely oblivious to the presence of other motorists?
While such actions are completely different from "burnouts" performed in patches of diesel, they are arguably just as dangerous for other road users.
I am a great believer in the maxim "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Just what has prompted the imminent change to the law relating to older drivers? Pressure from Grey Power seems to be the answer.
If my father's example is in any way typical, the system was already allowing - because of sentiment or sympathy - people who should no longer be driving to continue, when they had lost the ability to do so safely.
How on earth is removing a requirement for regular driving checks for the elderly going to improve that situation?
As I understand it, several Australian states are considering introducing regular tests for older drivers, having come to appreciate that their increasingly crowded roads are made more dangerous by drivers who are no longer up to the challenge.
In at least one American state, if a highway patrolman observes an elderly motorist say, driving 65km/h in the fast lane of a freeway, and the officer feels on speaking to the driver he or she should not be driving, the driver's licence is confiscated there and then.
The burden of proving that the driver is capable of having the licence restored then moves to him or her.
They must pass a competency test and then sit regular tests.
While that may be going a little too far, we seem to have no problem following the lead of Australian states - particularly Victoria - in moving towards lower tolerances for alcohol and speed.
Why are we moving in the opposite direction when it comes to screening older drivers for competence?
As devastating as it must be for an older person to lose the right to drive, a dangerous driver is a dangerous driver - whether he or she is 17 or 75.
* David Garrett is a barrister from Auckland.
