Mandatory Sight Tests for Drivers Over 70 – Is This Really the Most Effective Way of Improving Road Safety Statistics ?

 

I have to admit, my first reaction when I saw this news item was “…Oh no, not another lammy…”.

It’s perfectly true that road accident statistics, along with small boat crossings, taxes, and other such undesirable phenomena, have been on the up since Labour took power in 2024, but what seems to have escaped the policy makers’ collective notice is that the bulk of RTAs are caused by inexperienced drivers, and notably those under 21. 

Insurance companies have long realised this as hard fact, and, as would be expected, their charging structures reflect the  risk, with sky high annual premiums into the thousands now being charged for the under 21s, with the traditional sharp downward transition in cost after age 25 is reached still in force.

It’s also true that a small number of thoughtless elderly drivers do neglect their legal (and moral !) obligation to self-declare to DVLA any change in their circumstances which could affect their driving skills…of which a deterioration in eyesight is but one. These, fortunately rare, individuals unfortunately tend to give the rest of their driving peers a ‘bad name’ and may well yet end up causing a wholly unnecessary new imposition on the rest of us in the form of the proposed 3-yearly compulsory eye test.

What has brought things to a head now, and led to this remarkably clumsy and evidently highly unpopular proposal, are some noteworthy fatalities which were caused principally by drivers in their late 70s and 80s. Thes folks should clearly have self-certified as unfit years ago. Looking in more detail at the individual cases, moreover, it appears that eyesight wasn’t the only element responsible for any of the accidents, with delayed reaction times and general poor cognition also being involved in the mix.

There are likely to be a number of adverse consequences of the measure if introduced (which, incidentally is an excellent example of  'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut').

If a mandatory sight test for all drivers over 70 every 3 years were included as part of the licence renewal process, it would:

1)       Fail to address the many other manifestations of old age involved in accident causation (and not just RTAs)

2)       Introduce an unnecessary burden on the 5 million plus older drivers with current licences to arrange an additional sight test, attend a facility competent to do it…and then pay for it. A single failure, for whatever reason, would then ‘mark them for life’.

3)       Create much additional stress to the older generation of drivers, many of whom rely exclusively on their cars, have limited mobility and therefore could not cope with the ‘rigours’ of public transport (which in some rural areas is virtually non-existent anyway). The 'victims' of the test would then become housebound, with the attendant risks of social isolation depression and the increased burden on the NHS these pathologies cause.

4)       Create an additional and significant extra administrative burden for DVLA – at the very least, each and every one of the 5.6 million applications for a renewal would need additional verification of the sight test results. There would also need to be a rigorous assessment of each appeal against licence withdrawal decision, of which there would undoubtedly be many.

Point 1) is arguably the most damning indictment of the proposal – if, as a society, we really feel that everyone over 70 is potentially unfit to drive, we should adopt a much more stringent testing process, involving a full assessment of cognitive skills, hearing loss, the physical ability to manipulate controls and continually assess hazards all round the vehicle,  etc., etc. 

Given the complexity and the resource that would be needed to assess a driver’s competence to do all of that, the temptation would be to simply ban driving for everyone after their 70th birthday…and good luck to any government that tries that one !

 

The reality is that the vast majority of older drivers are still perfectly competent to drive, and indeed their long experience would put some of the more impetuous newly qualified drivers in their teens and twenties to shame. Most older drivers are aware of their limitations and will realise when and if their driving abilities have become challenged, and modify their expectations of where and when they should drive accordingly. They would even refrain from driving altogether if appropriate, in the knowledge that their own lives, as well as those of other road users, depended on it. 

Anyone found to be deliberately flouting their obligation to self-report, who was then involved in an accident, should of course at the very least lose their licence permanently, and be liable for any penalties under criminal law that applied. A sight test, however comprehensive, would not be expected to substitute for these existing measures and the obligation for continuous personal assessments, and neither should it….it's possible that a pass every 3 years could make the driver less concerned with any ongoing deterioration...until their next renewal date came along.

A major worry when it comes to road safety is that proposal of new legislation notably contains little to address the carnage we see on the roads caused directly by drivers in the youngest age groups…both to themselves and those unfortunate enough to get in their way. The only small concession in the proposed draft legislation offered to address this problem so far is a hint that we may see some restriction on newly qualified  drivers carrying multiple passengers in the same age group. This measure, if adopted, would only apply for the first 6 months after qualifying; arguably the most dangerous time of all for a newly qualified driver is later on when they think they have ‘served their apprenticeship’ and are now a fully competent and experienced operator. That is precisely the time when their resulting over-confidence can kill, particularly when at the wheel with a car-full of their peers to show off to….

Another road safety issue becoming more and more serious, and which doesn't seem to have warranted much attention by the authorities, is the mushrooming unauthorised use of eBikes and eScooters. 

Despite the fact that none of these devices are actually road-legal (outside of approved Local Authority rental schemes), illicit riding has become widespread and largely unchallenged. They are also fequently used for quick getaways in phone snatching and other crimes. We're also seeing more and more incidents where pedestrians, minding their own business on designated pavements, are put at risk or even injured by illegal use of these devices. Since the age group concerned is almost universally the under 25s, it is arguable that the resources earmarked for over 70s' sight tests might be more usefully employed in tackling this type of offence. Prompt enforcement and confiscation of offending vehicles might well also have prevented a few of the recent house fires started by faulty eScooter batteries, thereby saving Fire Service resources for more worthy tasks, and even preventing some unnecessary deaths.....

Reading between the lines, it’s obvious that the sight test proposal is yet another swipe at the elderly population by a leadership team that is clearly ‘at sea’ with its policy decisions, and railing against any group who are not seen to support them. Another reason why this might have been chosen as a 'flagship' measure is that it would appear at first sight to be relatively easy to administer. As already discussed, all drivers over 70 have to self-certify every 3 years, so the administrative 'machinery' at DVLA is already in place. What isn't so obvious are the downstream resource implications of managing sight test verification and approval for the 5.6 million drivers over 70 who currently hold a UK licence....I'll leave it to the economists among us to work out how many billions that's likely to cost the taxpayer.

It is to be hoped that enough of the more astute Labour back-benchers will realise the danger to their seats in 2029 of enraging their 'senior electors' with yet another targeted and intrusive imposition of this sort. It should be remembered that this growing demographic now represent upwards of 20% of the electorate, and use their vote the most consistently of any group. Labour back benchers will already be acutely aware of the ill-will this government has already created amongst older voters from their mailboxes during the winter fuel debacle, and will still be reeling from their resulting thrashing at the polls in May. They will also be nervously anticipating the likely repeat in May '26, when many more Labour-held council seats will be at risk.  The contribution the many older voters who defected from the Tories in 2024 made to their election will also not have gone unnoticed.

As an unusually powerful group at Westminster, they may thus once again introduce a large dollop of sense into the equation by making their displeasure clear to the whips. Fortunately for us,  they do seem to be quite good at controlling a hopelessly wayward and disuturbingly vindictive leadership's worst excesses....so far.

Editor’s note: A special message to the leadership team…careful you don’t ‘out-lammy’ your own Foreign Secretary…he won't appreciate the competition. And whatever you do, don't 'reshuffle' him - he's too good for the nation's morale to miss.

First published 13.8.25; Revised 21.8.25