Elderly drivers, a worrying example.

Simon Brooke wrote:

JNugent wrote:
spindrift wrote:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...ght-test.49605...

A driver doesn't notice a cyclist in broad daylight.
He doesn't notice the bady smashing his windscreen, he carries on
driving.
And he gets his license back in a year!

Did you miss:
"We understand that you will not be applying for a new licence in any case"?

We understand a lot of things, but we may be mistaken. The
magistrate's understanding does not, as I understand it, have force of
law.

The gentleman concerned is 82 years old. He will have to make certain
declarations (including health declarations) if he ever applies for another
licence.

OK, so he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered and didn't have his property
forfeit to the Crown (which will no doubt mightily displease spindrift,
mileburner and Phil W Lee), but he's still going to find a licence a bit hard
to get.

On Jul 15, 8:09*pm, JNugent wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
JNugent wrote:
spindrift wrote:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...ght-test.49605....
A driver doesn't notice a cyclist in broad daylight.
He doesn't notice the bady smashing his windscreen, he carries on
driving.
And he gets his license back in a year!
Did you miss:
"We understand that you will not be applying for a new licence in any case"?
We understand a lot of things, but we may be mistaken. The
magistrate's understanding does not, as I understand it, have force of
law.

The gentleman concerned is 82 years old. He will have to make certain
declarations (including health declarations) if he ever applies for another
licence.

OK, so he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered and didn't have his property
forfeit to the Crown (which will no doubt mightily displease spindrift,
mileburner and Phil W Lee), but he's still going to find a licence a bit hard
to get.

Nugent, remember what I said about inventing silly arguments that
nobody's made?

Your post is a complete straw man, unable to debate what's been raised
you invent an attitude and then slag it off.

Nobody has suggested torture and death for drivers who make a mistake,
why post silly guff like this?

Argue with what's been said, not your hysterical inventions, please
stop it.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:13:46 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Matt B wrote:
spindrift wrote:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...est.4960582.jp


Why the ageist subject title? The main factor was apparently poor
eyesight. Poor eyesight can occur at any age.


And can be the same for cyclists.
More to the point, I wonder haw many road users (and I include cyclists)
don't know they need glasses.
I've been wearing glasses since I was 20 & have an eye test every year,
but I have met people who tell me that they are glad they don't need
glasses, but have never had a test.

Driving in unfamiliar parts of London ( I guess it would work in other
large cities) is what did it for me. Having to commit yourself to a
lane before you can read the sign to see what lane you need to be in
is a good clue you need help ;-)

--

Pete

robert hancy wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:09 pm, JNugent wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
JNugent wrote:
spindrift wrote:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...ght-test.49605....
A driver doesn't notice a cyclist in broad daylight.
He doesn't notice the bady smashing his windscreen, he carries on
driving.
And he gets his license back in a year!
Did you miss:
"We understand that you will not be applying for a new licence in any case"?
We understand a lot of things, but we may be mistaken. The
magistrate's understanding does not, as I understand it, have force of
law.
The gentleman concerned is 82 years old. He will have to make certain
declarations (including health declarations) if he ever applies for another
licence.

OK, so he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered and didn't have his property
forfeit to the Crown (which will no doubt mightily displease spindrift,
mileburner and Phil W Lee), but he's still going to find a licence a bit hard
to get.

Nugent, remember what I said about inventing silly arguments that
nobody's made?

Your post is a complete straw man, unable to debate what's been raised
you invent an attitude and then slag it off.

Nobody has suggested torture and death for drivers who make a mistake,
why post silly guff like this?

Argue with what's been said, not your hysterical inventions, please
stop it.

Dear, oh dear...

Try this Google link:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=definition%3A+irony&btnG=Google+Sea rch&meta=&aq=f&oq=

And this one:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=definition%3A+rhetoric&btnG=Search& meta=

The ncome back when you are properly equipped to discus and debate.

"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
Mr Benn wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message
...
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...est.4960582.jp

An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a cyclist and
drove down the road with him trapped under the car.

More fuel for my idea of compulsory driver re-testing evey x years. And
when I get to be PM, I'll also make cycling tuition and testing
mandatory.

Okey Dokeley -- what age do you suggest cyclists are to be tested?
Where do they cycle until then?

Off-road. Or maybe provisional licences can be granted (don't laugh!)
allowing cycling only on minor roads. Cycling on busy shared roads these
days can be very dangerous and it's not something to be taken lightly.

"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

I've been wearing glasses since I was 20 & have an eye test every year,
but I have met people who tell me that they are glad they don't need
glasses, but have never had a test.

This is especially of concern to people who may have a family history of
glaucoma (like my father) which can affect peripheral as well as central
vision. Often they have blind spots in peripheral vision that can make a
cyclist completely disappear at a junction. The peripheral vision
blindspots are often only discovered after being examined by an optometrist.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

OK, so he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered and didn't have his property
forfeit to the Crown (which will no doubt mightily displease spindrift,
mileburner and Phil W Lee), but he's still going to find a licence a bit
hard to get.

Gee! Thanks for the mention.

If you want my take on it, the guy should not have been on the road in the
first place. If we had to annually renew our licences and perhaps take a
full retest every five years or so, drivers like this would be weeded out
before they became partially sighted or otherwise unsafe on the roads.

And if there are concerns over funding? I would happily pay a, say £100 pa
licence renewal fee and more for a re-test. Those who can't afford it, can't
really afford cars anyway.

These measures may not be popular but they would help reduce the number of
dangerous drivers on the road and improve safety.

robert hancy wrote:

Nugent, remember what I said about inventing silly arguments that
nobody's made?

Welcome to NugentWorld...

Your post is a complete straw man, unable to debate what's been raised
you invent an attitude and then slag it off.

Looking for an argument? Why not create a stupid scenario, apply someones
name (or pseudonym) to it, and then "quite rightly" argue against it. Isn't
*that what Usenet is all about?

Nobody has suggested torture and death for drivers who make a mistake,
why post silly guff like this?

Torture is wrong, even for this guy (or Nugent).

Argue with what's been said, not your hysterical inventions, please
stop it.

Don't tell them to stop, it only serves to encourage. You carry on Nugent!
When bored we can always KF :-)

Keitht wrote:
Mr Benn wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message
...
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...est.4960582.jp

An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a cyclist
and drove down the road with him trapped under the car.

More fuel for my idea of compulsory driver re-testing evey x years. And
when I get to be PM, I'll also make cycling tuition and testing
mandatory.

Okey Dokeley -- what age do you suggest cyclists are to be tested?

8 years old, anything much before that and they seem to have difficulty
understanding rights of way and terms such as primary/secondary position.

Where do they cycle until then?

For leisure, parks, cycle paths & private land. For transport, The back of a
trike, tandem or tow along bike.

Is there an age limit for 'not on the pavement'?

As it stands there isn't. It is illegal at whatever age, although I doubt
very much whether anyone under the age of about 16 would ever be prosecuted.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:51:42 +0100, Mr Benn %%%@%.%% wrote:

"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
Mr Benn wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message
...
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...est.4960582.jp

An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a cyclist and
drove down the road with him trapped under the car.

More fuel for my idea of compulsory driver re-testing evey x years. And
when I get to be PM, I'll also make cycling tuition and testing
mandatory.

Okey Dokeley -- what age do you suggest cyclists are to be tested?
Where do they cycle until then?

Off-road. Or maybe provisional licences can be granted (don't laugh!)
allowing cycling only on minor roads. Cycling on busy shared roads these
days can be very dangerous and it's not something to be taken lightly.

What happens if you live on an A road? How are the children going to
cycle then? If off-road they might need to be taken in a car, or they
may have to walk their bikes until they find a minor road. It isn't
very likely is it? In fact as a scheme it seems likely to reduce the
number of people (both adults and children) who cycle severely over the
long-term.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_