Dozens of people are struck by vehicles on the footway and killed each year (I did know the figure but cant recall it - perhap I shouldn't be driving if im getting forgetful!)
It only when an older driver does it that it draws comments in the media about health, eyesight, etc.
When a young buck or a middle aged woman is responsible the question of their medical fitness to drive never raises an eyebrow in the media or among society in general.
I've no issue with eye tests for drivers. As a responsible road user who wears glasses to drive im well up to leading from the front on that one.
However, this constant emphasis on the medical fitness of older drivers while demographics with higher casualty and offending rates is ignored is nothing short of ageist.
Measures should be evidence led, and the evidence is that older drivers are actually far from being the most dangerous demographic on the road. To target them or start with them first is utterly beyond reasoning and comprehension, particularly when 48 year old female Defender drivers are (allegedly) losing consciousness behind the wheel and ploughing into primary school children in the playground. Where is the call for middle aged people such as Claire Freemantle to be subjected to any kind of health assessment?
Either bring in such measures universally, or if to be phased in start with the most dangerous demographic. To do anything else is illogical enough to make Mr Spock face palm.
. I hope compulsory eye test results will be linked to RFL renewal for vehicles - surely it will provide a slightly safer road environment, although the issue of illegal/uninsured drivers doesn't seem to be tackled, despite the (surely) easy linking of computer records.
