We'll See You When You Turn 80!

Tests that are done at the doctor's office to determine if you have the cognitive ability to drive are not always individually designed for the patient.

 Of course not. Any sort of testing has to be standardized, or there's arguably no objectivity to the procedure. At the licensing level (administered by ICBC), this is going to apply to both Knowledge and Practical testing for everyone. The same type of standardized requirement must be expected of physicans, or their analysis can't be treated seriously.

For instance, the education level of the person responding to the questions. To lose your licence because you do not know your time tables does not seem right to me.

In the case of the testing applied by ICBC, the intelligence/knowledge level of fundamental language or mathematical skills is typically around Grade 8 level. The test procedure is not the issue, and this surely applies to senior evaluations done by a physician. 

For sure, when individuals 'fail' a test - whether it be due to a lack of fundamental knowledge or actual ability to 'pass' that test, it's common to blame the testing system. Much easier in fact for an individual, than accepting that they lacked the essential ability to pass that test.  A very reaction common amongst older folks who have been driving for years without an apparent issue, when they're advised that there may indeed be a problem with how they process information these days.  But I honestly don't believe that anybody gets denied their driving privilege because they don't know that 4 x 9 = 36, or whatever.

Then there are those doctors who have known you forever and let you go on your way without any intent of letting you lose your license.

This may be the case, but the fact is that the physician (or other health professional) is legally obligated to report concerns:

Report of health professional

230   (1) This section applies to every legally qualified and registered psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner and nurse practitioner who has a patient 16 years of age or older who

(a) in the opinion of the psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner has a medical condition that makes it dangerous to the patient or to the public for the patient to drive a motor vehicle, and

(b) continues to drive a motor vehicle after being warned of the danger by the psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner.

(2) Every psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner and nurse practitioner referred to in subsection (1) must report to the superintendent the name, address and medical condition of a patient referred to in subsection (1).

(3) No action for damages lies or may be brought against a psychologist, an optometrist, a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner for making a report under this section, unless the psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner made the report falsely and maliciously.

If I have my facts right, when the physician completes the required medical form, it will then be reviewed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, now known as RoadSafe BC.  It's worth taking a moment to view the information that they are required to process for each individual who may be affected.  The particular section on seniors may be found, here.

The system is not perfect; far from it, in fact.  But it's wrong to assume that the authorities are ignoring this growing problem; the fact is, for each and every one of us, the time is going to come when one of two things occur.

1. We die.

2. We become either physically or mentally unable to operate a motor vehicle safely.

And after spending the last half of my life in the driver training/testing industry, I can tell you that every one of us reading this fits into the latter category, whether we realize it or not.

The Driver License doesn't get issued to the vehicle. It gets issued to the human who is apparently qualified to drive the vehicle they have brought in for the test, and all others in the same category. So a self-driving vehicle wouldn't meet their necessary standards.

Trust me, the ICBC Road Test criteria require the driver to be seated behind the wheel, and operating the vehicle to a proscribed requirement. This will be, in part, the physical skills to correctly operate the wheel, brake, and accelerator. Whilst also, and perhaps most importantly, demonstrating and applying good Observation skills throughout the test, to the extent that the Driver Examiner can ensure that this is happening. 

There may indeed be a time soon when we're all in driverless vehicles; but nobody is going to qualify for a Driver License in one.

Oh, an additional thought that might apply. Let's suppose our aged driver (already in possesion of a valid license) has bought one of these cars, and wants only to 'drive' that car.  There might be a provision for that created under Restriction 51 being added to his/her license, with the specifics defined.

 i'm 84 and to paraphrase the Mexican bandit in "Sierra Madre," I dont need no damn test or updates.

It's great to know that you're still going strong at 84, and there are no worries on the part of your GP.  But it's important to realize that the reasons for testing new drivers are vastly different from the reasons for testing elderly drivers.

With new drivers, it has to be determined whether the applicant has the fundamental ability to properly operate the vehicle all on their own; turns, stops, starts, lane use, parking, reversing, sufficiently good observation and following of the rules being necessary, obviously.

Some of the worst drivers I see around here are many of the young crowd.

I don't doubt it. But that's a separate, enforcement issue. It's not how they drove at the time of their road test. Complain to the cops if you don't like the way someone is driving now.

Meanwhile, whilst minimal medical standards are required for every driver, varying with the class of license, the main concern with regular drivers, on the part of the licensing authorities, is the gradual onset of dementia, an entirely different measurement. The people who set the rules aren't stupid; they realize that if someone who has been driving a vehicle for 60+ years, and hasn't screwed up too badly so far, does not need a test of their fundamental skills. Let's face it, if you can drive your car to the license office, then you can drive a car.

So although many drivers fail to follow all the rules, the reason for potentially requiring a Re-Examination is quite different. It's a medical issue, and that's a rationale that applies to all drivers, at every license level.

Not just the vehicle; the roads have changed as well. Was there an education campaign when roundabouts were introduced?

Yes, there was. ICBC spent some bucks on print media, at a minimum, whilst also updating their Learn To Drive Smart guide. At the local level, the municipal government contacted experts (including myself) for an exchange of information on how Roundabouts should be dealt with, that would go to into a local newspaper advertisement they were preparing. 

I’ve never seen traffic enforcement at one yet I see violation after violation at these intersections.

You'll get no argument from me. But frankly, it seems increasingly rare to see any traffic enforcement at any intersections these days. And why drivers seem unable to comprehend that 'Yield' means that you must yield to everyone else is beyond me.

Encouragingly, as Roundabouts have been added by authorities around the province, the local ICBC Road Test routes have been re-designed to encompass them (as well as the Traffic Circles appearing in quiet neighbourhoods near you).

What does green paint mean? What about red?

Good questions, these! I'm pretty certan that green paint means don't stop on it, unless you're a cyclist. The red paint that's now showing up appears to designate some sort of HOV/Bus-dedicated traffic lane; it's on my list of new things to find out about.

Anyone know what Elephant’s feet are?

Yup, those new crosswalks that have been created for both pedestrian and cyclist use. I have no idea whey they use that term (but then, the British have Pegasus, Pelican, Puffin, Toucan & Zebra crossings) but I sure as heck haven't ever seen an Elephant with square feet. The message to the driver on the main road - that the conflicting road users are likely to arrive in their path a whole lot sooner and faster - is hopefully understood by all.

There should at least be some education and testing at the time of renewal.

Education and testing are two different issues. When are people going to realize that?  In an earlier post, you said:

I dont need no damn test or updates.

Really? In whose opinion? Frankly, I don't need no damn test (in my opinion - or my doctor's) so I'll keep on keeping on driving the vehicles that I'm licensed for. But updates would help all of us, and I think that updating everyone as much as possible (even if only at license renewal time) is of paramount importance. 

That said, I don't think that ignorance of the general rules - or whatever new rules that are introduced on our roadways - is any kind of leading factor when collisions occur. 

But increasingly, we have more elderly drivers on the road. It's great that they're all alive and living longer in this society. But not if their mental abilities threaten all the other road users; those ones shouldn't be licensed, at any age.

You say you received a form. But, you don't indicate who the sender was!

Whilst there's a large difference in what a GP might charge to conduct a Motor Vehicles Medical form, and what a walk-in clinic might charge for the same service, I'm confident that neither ICBC nor RSBC issued a form to you with this $300 demand.

This doesn't pass the smell test, for me. I would recommend you take that form into your local ICBC license office, and seek the opinion of the Driver Examiner Supervisor, or the Office Manager. They will not only be able to advise you correctly on the procedures that apply, but if there's something crooked going on here, they'll have their own security people look into this and deal with it properly.