Editorial: Dangerous road to be going down

The Prime Minister was accorded a standing ovation at Grey Power's annual conference after she vowed to axe two-yearly practical driving tests for those aged over 80. She will get no such response from anyone interested in the safety of all road users. This proposal is the latest in a series of Government prevarications and prioritisations that sit oddly with the widespread unease over dangerous driving practices.

There is, in fact, no reason for contemplating change to the rules that have governed the licensing of the elderly since 1999. The system, which dictates the over-80s sit a full road test every two years and be declared medically fit to drive, is working well. Statistics suggest as much. The most recently available figures, for 2001-02, show the death rate for every 10,000 drivers in the 80-plus age group was just over two. The comparable rate for those aged 15 to 19 was more than seven, and for those in their 20s, more than four.

This should not, however, be seen as an indication that the elderly are especially safe drivers. Insurance figures that reveal their high incidence in the rate for minor accidents - low-speed neighbourhood collisions, supermarket shunts and the like - suggest otherwise. Rather, it confirms the practical test is succeeding, by and large, in removing from the road the elderly drivers who present the biggest danger to themselves, and to others.

Grey Power has pushed for the change on the basis that the practical test places unfair stress and expense on the elderly. Again, statistics do not support that assertion. In fact, they indicate that the test may be too much of a doddle. Fully 96 per cent of those who have taken the over-80 test have passed after one or more attempts. That does not suggest an ordeal that penalises the elderly. It indicates a test that all except those with palpable driving deficiencies are able to pass.

That test should, in fact, be a searching examination of a person's driving ability. It should be a daunting experience, just as the initial testing for a driver's licence should not be approached lightly. Indeed, it should jolt some of those over 80 to recognise their frailties mean they can no longer exercise the necessary care and responsibility.

If the practical test were scrapped, the onus for detecting bad elderly drivers would fall on the medical clearance. Doctors have not been slow to point out the flaws of this approach. Medical examinations reveal the state of eyesight and such like, but they do not test a person's cognitive and co-ordination skills in a car. We would not give young drivers a licence without assessing such practical skills; nor should we lower standards for a group whose skills are waning with age and who are prone to minor accidents.

Doctors' groups have reacted to the Prime Minister's pledge with the polite observation that many issues have to be worked through. That process should stop it dead in its tracks. There may, as Helen Clark also suggests, be some scope for more use of a range of conditional or restricted licence options. The possibility, for example, of a somewhat easier practical test for those prepared to drive only within their immediate neighbourhood, and not on motorways or main highways.

But the scope for this is not great. It should not result in conditional licences being distributed like confetti. A driver's failure to stop or give way creates a dangerous situation for other road users, whether it occurs on a suburban street or the open road. No licence, no matter how conditional, can be granted when such basic rules are breached.

For many elderly people, the loss of a driver's licence is a savage blow. They may equate the loss of mobility with the disappearance of their final shred of independence. But the over-riding concern must be the safety of all road users. The present system recognises that. It does not discriminate harshly against the over-80s; in fact, it may even be tilted in their favour. There is no reason for change.