Andy Burnham considers introducing new driving test for over-70s
Andy Burnham’s government is considering changes to the rules governing older motorists, with drivers aged over 70 potentially facing new assessments designed to improve road safety. The proposals could introduce mandatory eyesight testing for older drivers alongside the possibility of cognitive assessments, opening a fresh debate about road safety, personal freedom and the rights of Britain’s ageing population.
The plans form part of the Government’s developing Road Safety Strategy, which is examining measures intended to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the country’s roads. While ministers have stressed the importance of protecting the public, they have also acknowledged that driving remains essential to the independence and wellbeing of many older people.
For millions of motorists, the prospect of additional testing raises an important question: how can the Government identify drivers who genuinely pose a risk without unfairly restricting those who remain perfectly capable of driving safely?
The government may introduce a new test for drivers in their 70s. (Image: iStockphoto)
The issue is particularly significant as the UK’s population continues to age, with more people living longer and remaining active well into their seventies and eighties. Any changes to driving regulations could affect families, rural communities, healthcare services and older people who rely on their vehicles for everyday activities.
Government examines new requirements for drivers over 70
The Government has confirmed that it is consulting on the possibility of mandatory eyesight testing for motorists aged over 70. Officials are also developing options for cognitive testing, although the precise form and scope of any such assessments have yet to be established in the proposals outlined.
The Road Safety Strategy states that ministers are considering mandatory eyesight checks for drivers over 70 and will develop options for cognitive testing among older motorists.
The stated objective is to reduce deaths and injuries involving older drivers without unnecessarily restricting their mobility or personal freedom.
That distinction will be central to the political debate surrounding the proposals. A policy that improves road safety while allowing capable motorists to remain independent could attract support. However, a blanket requirement that automatically subjects every older driver to extensive testing could face criticism from campaigners who believe age alone is an inadequate measure of driving ability.
For now, the proposals should not be interpreted as confirmation that every driver over 70 will have to sit a new practical driving examination. The Government is exploring policy options, and further details would be needed before motorists could know what any final system would involve.
The potential measures could range from straightforward vision assessments to more detailed evaluations of memory, attention, reaction times and the ability to respond to changing traffic conditions.
Each approach would have different implications for drivers, testing providers and the public services responsible for administering the rules.
Why older drivers are under scrutiny
The Department for Transport’s figures provide part of the background to the Government’s review.
According to its latest factsheet on older drivers, the number of people killed or seriously injured in collisions involving at least one car driver aged 70 or over increased from 3,082 in 2004 to 3,451 in 2023.
The figures represent a modest increase over that period, but they do not, by themselves, establish that older drivers are becoming less safe. Changes in population size, driving patterns, traffic volumes and the number of miles travelled can all influence the number of casualties recorded.
More concerning to policymakers is the difference in casualty rates when mileage is taken into account.
The Department for Transport reports that the rate of killed or seriously injured casualties per billion miles driven rises from 18.8 for drivers aged 60 to 69 to 56.7 for drivers aged 70 and over. The factsheet also indicates that the risk of a fatal collision per mile increases considerably after the age of 80.
These figures help explain why ministers are examining whether existing arrangements provide sufficient protection.
However, interpreting them requires care. Collision statistics involving an older driver do not automatically mean that the older motorist caused the collision. Other drivers, road conditions, vehicle characteristics and environmental factors can also contribute.
Nor does every person experience the physical and cognitive changes associated with ageing in the same way. Some motorists remain alert, observant and confident behind the wheel well into their eighties, while others may experience difficulties at a younger age.
This creates a challenge for policymakers: the Government must respond to measurable road safety risks without assuming that every member of an entire age group presents the same level of danger.
Could cognitive testing become compulsory?
The possibility of cognitive assessments is likely to generate some of the strongest reactions to the proposed changes.
Unlike an eyesight test, which can assess whether a person meets established visual standards, a cognitive assessment could involve examining several abilities associated with safe driving. These may include concentration, memory, judgement, spatial awareness and the capacity to process information quickly.
Driving requires motorists to make repeated decisions under pressure. They must monitor traffic, interpret road signs, judge distances, recognise hazards and react to unexpected events. A significant impairment affecting these abilities could make certain driving situations more difficult.
Conditions associated with cognitive decline, including some forms of dementia, can affect abilities relevant to driving. Nevertheless, a diagnosis alone does not necessarily provide a complete picture of an individual’s practical driving capacity.
The difficulty is determining how a test could reliably identify people who are unsafe without incorrectly excluding those who remain competent.
A short screening assessment might identify warning signs, but it could also produce false positives or fail to detect difficulties that emerge only in particular driving situations. More comprehensive assessments could offer additional information, but they would require trained professionals, suitable facilities and sufficient funding.
There would also be questions about how results would be interpreted, whether drivers could appeal decisions and what support would be available to those who failed an assessment.
If cognitive testing becomes part of the system, ministers will need to explain whether it would apply universally to everyone above a particular age or be triggered by medical concerns, reported incidents or evidence of deteriorating driving ability.
That distinction could determine whether the policy is seen as a proportionate safety measure or an unnecessarily restrictive intervention.
Experts warn against treating age as a diagnosis
The International Longevity Centre has previously argued for a proportionate approach to assessing older motorists.
Its publication Driving in later life: options for reform, published in 2011, recommended encouraging people to declare relevant health conditions, supported by public awareness campaigns. It suggested that cognitive screening should be introduced where concerns arise rather than imposing blanket mandatory testing solely because someone has reached a particular age.
The organisation has highlighted the complexities involved in determining how conditions such as dementia affect driving. Although some forms of dementia can influence visual perception and cognitive ability, the relationship between a diagnosis and an individual’s precise driving capacity is not always straightforward.
This argument presents a challenge for the Government. Ministers must consider the possibility that some drivers may be unaware of their declining abilities while avoiding an approach that treats normal ageing as evidence of incompetence.
A carefully designed system could combine medical guidance, self-reporting, professional assessments and practical evaluations when necessary. Such a framework might help distinguish between drivers who need additional support and those who should no longer be behind the wheel.
However, the effectiveness of any system would depend on clear standards, consistent decision-making and public confidence in the assessment process.
Without those safeguards, testing could become a source of anxiety for older motorists and their families, particularly if drivers believe that decisions are being made on the basis of age rather than evidence.
Eyesight checks could be another major change
Eyesight testing appears to be a more immediate focus of the Government’s consultation.
Good vision is essential for identifying hazards, reading road signs, recognising pedestrians and judging what is happening around a vehicle. Changes in eyesight can develop gradually, meaning some motorists may not immediately appreciate how much their ability to see clearly has deteriorated.
The Government has also said it will continue working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to emphasise the importance of roadside eyesight checks for drivers generally.
Under the approach described in the strategy, motorists who fail to meet the minimum eyesight standards required for driving could have their licences revoked by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
Ministers have further indicated that they will engage with relevant regulatory bodies to reinforce the importance of healthcare professionals notifying the DVLA when a patient is unwilling or unable to report a relevant condition themselves.
These measures suggest that the Government is considering road safety as a broader responsibility rather than simply an issue affecting older people.
Nevertheless, mandatory eyesight testing specifically for drivers over 70 would represent an additional requirement for that age group. The details would matter: motorists would need to know when tests must be completed, who could carry them out, how much they might cost and what happens if a driver fails.
Accessibility would be another important consideration. People living in rural areas or those with limited mobility could face practical difficulties attending appointments, while drivers on low incomes might be concerned about the expense of repeated assessments.
If the Government proceeds, making tests affordable and accessible could be essential to ensuring that the policy improves safety without creating avoidable hardship.
Driving is a lifeline for many older people
The debate cannot be separated from the role that driving plays in later life.
For many older people, a car is not simply a convenience. It can be the main means of reaching medical appointments, collecting prescriptions, shopping for food, visiting relatives and maintaining an active social life.
This is especially true in rural communities where public transport services may be infrequent or unavailable. Losing access to a vehicle could turn a short journey into a complicated trip involving several buses, long walks or assistance from family members.
The consequences can extend beyond practical inconvenience. Reduced mobility may make it harder for older people to maintain friendships, participate in community activities and remain independent.
Labour minister Lilian Greenwood previously acknowledged this concern, stating that driving can be important for older people’s wellbeing and ability to live independently. She also emphasised the Government’s responsibility to improve road safety as the country’s older population grows.
Her comments reflect the central tension facing ministers: protecting lives on the roads while preserving independence wherever possible.
A driver who is no longer safe behind the wheel must not be encouraged to continue driving simply because giving up a licence would be difficult. Equally, someone who can demonstrate that they remain safe should not lose their independence merely because they have passed a particular birthday.
This is why the availability of alternative transport could become an important part of the wider discussion. Better community transport, accessible public services and support for people who can no longer drive could reduce the impact of any new requirements.
Without those alternatives, even a well-intentioned safety policy could leave some older people isolated.
Political consequences for Andy Burnham’s government
For Andy Burnham’s government, the proposals could become a test of its ability to balance public safety with individual freedom.
Road safety is an issue on which ministers can point to a clear public interest: preventing serious collisions and reducing avoidable deaths. Yet driving is also closely connected to personal independence, making restrictions potentially sensitive among older voters and their families.
A policy perceived as fair, evidence-based and carefully targeted could be defended as a reasonable update to road safety rules. A system seen as penalising people simply for being over 70 could generate opposition from motorists’ organisations, older people’s charities and campaigners for independent living.
The Government will therefore need to communicate the difference between assessing a person’s ability to drive and making assumptions about their age.
It will also need to explain how any new system would work in practice. If assessments are introduced, the public will expect transparent criteria, appropriate medical oversight, affordable testing and a fair route for challenging decisions.
Funding will be another consideration. A large-scale programme of eyesight or cognitive assessments could require additional administrative capacity and trained staff. The Government would need to determine whether those costs would fall on motorists, the public purse or a combination of both.
The political argument is unlikely to be settled by statistics alone. Ministers will also have to consider how the changes affect families, carers and communities where driving remains essential.
What happens next?
The key point is that the Government is considering options rather than announcing a fully implemented new driving test for everyone over 70.
The Road Safety Strategy consultation provides a framework for examining mandatory eyesight checks and developing possible approaches to cognitive testing. Further decisions would be needed to establish the precise requirements, implementation timetable and safeguards.
Motorists should therefore avoid assuming that a new compulsory practical test has already been introduced. Any final arrangements would need to be confirmed through official Government announcements and the relevant licensing guidance.
The coming debate will revolve around several practical questions: whether assessments should apply to all older drivers or only those who raise specific concerns; how often checks should take place; who should conduct them; and what happens when a motorist does not meet the required standards.
There is also the question of whether practical driving assessments might be more appropriate in some cases than relying exclusively on medical screening.
Ultimately, the Government faces a difficult but important task. It must recognise that changes in vision, reaction time or cognition can affect driving while accepting that chronological age alone cannot determine whether someone is safe on the road.
For older motorists, the prospect of additional testing may be unsettling. For other road users, measures that identify genuine risks could offer reassurance. The success of any reform will depend on whether ministers can protect both groups through clear rules, reliable assessments and fair treatment.
Andy Burnham’s government has placed the issue under consideration, but the final policy remains to be determined. Until further details emerge, the central question is not simply whether drivers over 70 should face more testing. It is how Britain can make its roads safer without unnecessarily taking away the independence of people who can still drive safely.
