The greying of western society, together with older driver's apparent over-involvement in crashes, have led to a widespread concern about older driver safety and future road casualty levels. For some, the maintenance - and perhaps tightening - of age-based mandatory assessment procedures is seen as an effective countermeasure to the threatened explosion in older driver crashes. This paper provides an overview of the evidence for and against age-based assessment. The case for regular assessment relies upon older drivers' apparent over-representation in casualty crashes and the demographic changes that will increase the numbers of older drivers on the road. The case against age-based assessment is multiple: it has no demonstrable road safety benefits; it prompts premature cessation of driving; it prompts older people to use alternative transport modes that are riskier than the private car; and given its dwindling tax base, society will be unable to afford transport options to enable older people to maintain their quality of life. It was concluded that unsafe drivers can best be identified not through mandatory age-based assessment but through a more strategic approach, relying upon referral only of identified at-risk drivers for multi-tiered assessment. (A) "Reprinted with permission from Elsevier".
Abstract