Is it ageist to retest older drivers' eyesight?

Debates about road safety often quickly turn to older drivers. And so it has in these proposals, with the government consulting on a proposal for mandatory eye tests for older drivers from the age of 70 as part of the licence renewal process.

So is such a move justified? Well, yes and no.  There are three key things to balance when considering this proposal. The strength of the arguments around age and road safety, the very real vulnerability of older road users, and the potential impact of an increased number of older people giving up driving.

Many of the statistics on older people and road safety are taken as evidence of an increased risk posed by older drivers. But all these stats are really telling us is who is being killed or injured.   For example, in support of the move, the government highlighted figures which showed that about 24% of all car drivers killed in 2024 were 70 or older, and 12% of all casualties in car collisions involved older drivers. 

But that only tells us about the vulnerability of older drivers and passengers in an accident. It doesn’t tell us much about the contributory factors in these accidents.

Research from the International Longevity Centre and others shows that while fatalities and serious injuries involving drivers aged 70 or over have increased slightly over the last decade, the numbers still remain much lower than for other age groups. The perception that age itself is a significant factor in safety persists as an ageist stereotype which this legislation risks embedding. 

Poor eyesight does play a part in road safety. Department for Transport research found that around two in five (42%) of incidents involving drivers over 70 were due to sight problems, though this is still less than half of a relatively low number. And we don’t know how much of a role vision problems play in accidents involving drivers younger than 70. Eyesight problems do not begin with the issuing of the state pension.

There was no evidence put forward in the government consultation that implementing these changes or singling out a specific age group would significantly reduce accidents or casualties, even in countries where this may already have been tested. The thrust of the government’s argument seems to be that the UK system is more relaxed than most – but that in itself is not an argument for a policy targeting a very specific group of people. Particularly if we don’t know if it will achieve the desired result of reduced traffic accidents and reduced traffic casualties.

Has the government explored the case for eyesight testing as part of renewal at every age, and would this be a more effective policy solution? Was a policy measure impacting older drivers introduced as part of these measures to balance out some of the other proposals aimed at younger drivers?

Currently, drivers aged over 70 have to renew their driving licence in the UK every three years. This requirement was established back when life expectancy and healthy life expectancy levels were much lower than they are today. There is a strong case to argue that if mandatory eyesight testing is introduced, the requirement should start at 75, given that studies show a sharper drop-off in vision happens closer to 80 than 70.

Finally, if mandatory eye tests for older drivers do become law, the government could be swapping out one set of perceived, and potentially marginal, risks for a larger one with broad social and public health impacts.

For many people, losing access to a car can mean isolation, difficulties getting to health services, and a loss of independence. This is especially true in rural areas where driving is not a luxury but a lifeline.   The well-being, health, and work productivity costs associated with severe loneliness are approximately £9,900 per person per year. Being socially isolated comes with a higher risk of general mortality and cardiovascular disease. Older people also play vital roles in their communities, caring for others and volunteering, roles that depend on being able to get around.

Affordable, reliable and accessible transport options should be a priority already for government at all levels as part of a commitment to creating age-friendly communities suitable for our country’s growing ageing population.

It becomes even more important if we’re set to see a significant increase in the number of older drivers giving up their licences. If there are no viable public transport options or support to help people transition, this will significantly impact the quality of life of individuals and communities.

This policy must be grounded in evidence, not age‑based assumptions. Getting it right will mean protecting lives and safeguarding independence, inclusion and wellbeing in later life. Getting it wrong could cause more harm than good.

___________________

Natalie Turner is Deputy Director for Homes and Communities at the Centre for Ageing Better.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk