Motorists over 70 years of age could be banned from driving if they fail compulsory eye tests, under plans set to be included in the Government’s highly anticipated road safety strategy.
First reported by The Times, plans also include reducing the drink-driving limit in both England and Wales to be in line with Scotland’s laws, and introducing penalty points for passengers not wearing a seatbelt.
The new road safety strategy is set to be published by the Government in the autumn, with ministers believing that the current safety messaging is not working. It will be the first in more than a decade.
A government source told the BBC: “In no other circumstance would we accept 1,600 people dying [on the roads each year], with thousands more seriously injured, costing the NHS more than £2bn per year.
“This Labour government will deliver the first road safety strategy in a decade, imposing tougher penalties on those breaking the law, protecting road users and restoring order to our roads.”
The UK is one of only three European countries to rely on self-reporting of visual conditions affecting the ability to drive.
Under the changes considered, the strategy could make eye tests for the over-70s compulsory when they renew their driving licence every three years.
Also under consideration are tests for conditions like dementia, as are stricter rules for drink driving.
The drink-drive limit is expected to be tightened from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath to 22 micrograms.
This would match limits already set for Scotland, which were lowered in December 2014.
Other proposals include police being allowed to rely on roadside saliva tests for evidence of drug-driving rather than blood tests, making it easier to prosecute suspects.
Justice minister, Alex Davies-Jones, told BBC Breakfast that this was the biggest shake up to the UK’s driving laws “for decades”, but stressed that the proposed changes remain part of a consultation process.
She also reiterated that the government is not currently looking at the introduction of graduated licenses for young drivers – something many bereaved parents have called for – saying that it could potentially “over-target younger drivers and unfairly discriminate against them”.
The government “will keep everything under review”, she added.
Stakeholder reaction
Road Safety GB has welcomed the proposed measures, as it looks forward to seeing the whole strategy later in the year.
Bill Smith, Road Safety GB’s director of communications, said: “The new road safety strategy is much anticipated by the profession and as such it’s great to have confirmation that it will definitely be published before the end of this year.
“Road Safety GB welcomes all of the proposed measures outlined in this article, in particular lowering the drink drive limit, and tightening up the rules around eyesight testing for older drivers.
“We look forward to seeing the whole strategy in the autumn.”
A similar sentiment has been echoed by Th Road Safety Trust and UKROEd.
Ruth Purdie OBE, Chief Executive, The Road Safety Trust and UKROEd, said: “Too many lives are still lost on UK roads every year. We welcome the early signs that the new road safety strategy will address key issues such as driver eyesight and drink-driving limits.
“A new strategy has been long awaited, and we are encouraged by the Government’s positive engagement in developing it. We look forward to its full publication before the end of the year, which is an important step towards making our roads safer for everyone.”
The RAC says an overhaul of road safety laws is ‘much overdue’, although more needs to be done to tackle drink-driving.
It points to research from the Institute of Alcohol Studies which found the lower limit in Scotland “had no impact on any type of road accident, from fatal crashes to collisions”. It did, however, find the reform led to a greater anti-drink driving sentiment among the public.
Simon Williams, RAC head of policy, said: “We look forward to seeing the detail of the Government’s forthcoming road safety strategy as too many lives are being lost on our roads every year. More clearly needs to be done to change that.
“Government data for Scotland suggests merely reducing the legal drink-drive limit isn’t enough. A significant number of drink-drive offences are committed by reoffenders, so tackling the risk associated with habitual drink-drivers is crucial.
“Motorists we’ve surveyed are supportive of repeat offenders having to have alcolocks fitted to their vehicles to stop them driving over the limit. More scope for the police to deal with drug-drivers more quickly would be very welcome.”
The National Motorcycle Council (NMC) has underlined the need for the new strategy to have a clear focus on improving motorcycle safety though greater policy recognition for motorcycling and road safety support for motorcyclists as vulnerable road users.
Craig Carey-Clinch, NMC executive director, said: “We welcome news that the Government’s long overdue road safety strategy is finally progressing, particularly as the overall level of road casualties has not significantly changed since 2013.
“However, the strategy must have a strong focus on supporting safety improvements for motorcycling.
“These must be focussed on holistic measures to reduce rider vulnerability through recognition and inclusion in overall transport policies, with supporting actions to improve rider accessibility and reduce risks that riders face on the roads.
“This must include safer infrastructure, further pressure on roads maintenance and an emphasis on supporting the greater roll out of post-test rider and car driver education.”
It’s a spiral you do not want to go down, otherwise you will end up in a situation where there’ll be lawful requirements for dogs to have insurance due to potential for bites, cats due to damage to plants etc – where do you stop?
I agree that owners MUST have 3rd party insurance against dog bites.
You see horific examples of limbs mangled by dogs and children being savagd to death.
The recovery and restorative cosmetic surgery (often in a private hospital for speed) must be covered by the dog’s owner, there must be compensation for the trauma caused and any loss of income. The dog’s owner can either have 3rd party injuries insured or loose income / property in the courts.
As for cats yet another ‘me first’ cyclist making a very stupid point to deflect the very real issue of uninsured cyclists prowling the streets and pavement, creating injury and havoc.
ian, London
+1
Why are the government not targeting the young drivers as they cause the most fatalities?
They are targeting the over 70s with eye tests and licence bans if they fail the eye test, but alot of the elderly people rely on a car for mobility, loneliness and isolation.
Christine, Leicester
+3
> Clear example of an ‘its all about me’ cyclist.
No, A D Nicholson appears to be someone who clearly understands the limitations of forcing all cyclists to have insurance.
It’s a spiral you do not want to go down, otherwise you will end up in a situation where there’ll be lawful requirements for dogs to have insurance due to potential for bites, cats due to damage to plants etc – where do you stop?
The line has to be drawn somewhere.
David Weston, Newcastle upon Tyne
--2
A D Nicolson, Bradford on Avon
Clear example of an ‘its all about me’ cyclist.
Does not engage in logical debate, just postulates silly comments
Just why should cyclists avoid drug cycling controls
A cycle, at speed, is dangerous exposed handlebars and pointy break levers, rotating serrated pedals and chunks of metal frames similar to bull bars on cars, both dangerous at 20 mph.
I guess a pedestrian could fend a pavement cyclist off with their white stick, dog lead, child, walking frame, shopping etc.
ian, London
+4
Taking Ian’s provocative comment to its logical conclusion, shouldn’t we call for pedestrians to have compulsory produceable insurance as well as cyclists? Both groups are far more often the victims than the culprits of road injuries and deaths.
Then, when a walker or cyclist is hit by an uninsured or hit-and-run driver, their own insurance could pay out, saving the Motor Insurance Bureau (hence all insured drivers) a packet!
Walkers over 70 could have compulsory eye and dementia tests. There could be pedestrian alcohol limits, and penalties for drunk-walking and drug-walking.
All too often, pedestrians put themselves in harm’s way by walking erratically, or without due care and attention, stepping off the kerb, or walking on roads with no footways.
Though walkers like cyclists frequently inconvenience or endanger others, they don’t – yet – have to get approved training or pass tests to use the public highway. Food for thought!
A D Nicolson, Bradford on Avon
--6
These laws are welcome, but must also apply equally apply to cyclists, especially drug cycling. It should also be compulsory for all cyclists to have produceable insurance (before you start typing, that includes young cyclists included on famly insurance). Absolutly no exceptions except rented cycles, which will have insurance built into the pricing for cycle hire.
Ian, London
0
As over 70s ate entitled to a free eye test every 2 years wouldn’t it make sense to tie this policy into this? Otherwise pensioners will have to fork out for an unnecessary eye test and an extra burden on opticians! Do gov departments not talk to each other??
Ce Bahrami, Bridgnorth
+8
Of course the Government are ignoring lack of adequate rest for drivers which kills many more than any other cause, many cab drivers particular with UBER like companies drive extremely tired !
The SELBY accident in the the 1990s resulted in a train crash 35 dead and millions of pounds cost because a driver drove.for 20.hours without sleep!
Tiredness is the biggest killer on the roads FACT!
T P Flanagan, London
--1
I welcome the compulsory eye tests for over 70’s but all the reports state that the driver of a vehicle could receive penalty points if passengers are not wearing a seat belt, which would come some way to close the gap with the other fatal 4 offences all having points, but it does not mention if the driver is not wearing a seat belt. Has this been addressed is it going to be
Stephen Hughes, Derby
+2
we’ll see but the way labour do things i wonder if older drivers will get the chance to appeal as it can be difficult without a driving license for you when your older or even any age when your car is vital and better glasses might be all thats needed,hopefully its all done fairly and not used as another stick to hit drivers with
mark greenwood, TENBY
+2
Eye checks for 70 year olds – great start! The self declaring health questions needs to be replaced by a medical with driver’s GP too from 70 onwards. This isn’t ageist – insurance premiums for over 80’s are going through the roof due to no control measures.
With eyesight, why not for all drivers with 10 year licence renewal?
Good to hear motorcyclist issues being considered – they seem to be the forgotten vulnerable road user, with hardly any mention in local authority plans over the last few years. Motorcycle use needs to be embraced as an essential part of road planning as a way of reducing congestion and emissions in towns, and the proposal to allow default access to bus lanes (supported by numerous trials and agreed by the previous government) needs to become law too.
Ben Graham, Woodley, Reading
+10