Steer away from danger: Australia needs tougher elderly driver laws

As Australia’s population ages, the question of how to ensure elderly drivers remain safe on our roads becomes increasingly urgent. With more drivers over 75 navigating increasingly busy streets, the potential for age-related impairments, such as declining vision, slower reflexes, or cognitive conditions like dementia, to cause catastrophic accidents is a growing concern.

While many older Australians drive safely, the absence of consistent, mandatory safeguards across the nation leaves dangerous gaps in road safety. A patchwork of state and territory regulations, some robust and others alarmingly lax, creates uneven protection for all road users.

News of a tragic crash in Victoria’s eastern suburbs last week where a 91-year-old driver’s loss of control claimed two lives and injured a toddler, has ignited hot debate around this issue which has long been a topic of contention.

To prevent such tragedies, Australia must adopt stricter, uniform laws for elderly drivers, with New South Wales’ rigorous medical and driving assessments as a minimum standard.

A foggy windshield

Ageing brings physical and cognitive changes that can impair driving ability. Vision deterioration, reduced reaction times, and conditions like dementia or arthritis are well-documented risks.

While many older drivers self-regulate, avoiding night driving or busy highways, these measures rely on self-awareness, which cognitive decline can undermine.

Without mandatory assessments, unfit drivers may remain on the road until a crash occurs. In 2019, the Transport Accident Commission reported that drivers over 70 accounted for 18% of driver fatalities in Victoria, despite being a smaller demographic, and 41% of pedestrian deaths were over 70, highlighting their vulnerability in crashes.

This is not about ageism; it’s about acknowledging that age-related declines are statistically significant and can have deadly consequences if unaddressed.

The tragedy that unfolded in Victoria last week, where a 91-year-old woman lost control of her Toyota Yaris, veered onto a footpath, and struck a 59-year-old woman, her 60-year-old husband, and their two-year-old grandson, underscores this danger.

The grandmother died at the scene, the grandfather later succumbed to injuries, and the toddler was seriously injured. The car travelled 200 metres, crashing through a playground fence, with police investigating a possible medical episode. This incident, part of a grim week in Victoria where an elderly pedestrian was also killed crossing the road.

However, this is not just a Victorian problem, it’s a national one, with inconsistent rules failing to protect Australians uniformly.

Australia’s patchwork approach

Australia’s state-based licensing systems create a disjointed approach to elderly driver safety. Some states have robust safeguards, while others rely on inadequate self-regulation:

• New South Wales: Drivers aged 75 and older require annual medical assessments. From 85, they must pass a practical driving test every two years or opt for a restricted licence, for example local driving only. Heavy vehicle licence holders face checks from 70.
• Queensland: From age 75, drivers must carry an annual medical certificate confirming fitness to drive, with fines of $161 for non-compliance. Doctors can mandate more frequent checks.
• South Australia: Drivers aged 75 and older complete annual self-assessments, with medical or driving tests if concerns arise. Car drivers over 85 are exempt from mandatory practical tests.
• Western Australia: Annual medical assessments are required from 80. Practical tests may be mandated from 85 if recommended by a doctor, with restricted licences available.
• Australian Capital Territory: Annual medical assessments are mandatory from 75, with heavy vehicle drivers requiring checks from 70.
• Tasmania: No mandatory checks, but drivers must report conditions affecting driving. Licences issued after 65 are valid for five years.
• Northern Territory: No compulsory checks; drivers must self-report medical conditions.
• Victoria: No mandatory medical or driving tests. Drivers must self-report conditions, with reviews only if concerns are raised.

NSW’s system, with its mandatory medical checks and driving tests, sets a high standard. Queensland and the ACT also prioritise regular medical oversight, while Victoria, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory lag, relying on self-reporting that fails to catch impairments early.

This inconsistency leaves Australians vulnerable, as a driver deemed unfit in NSW could legally drive in Victoria without scrutiny.

International models 

Globally, stricter safeguards offer lessons for Australia:

• Japan: Drivers aged 70 and older face mandatory cognitive and driving tests. Dementia screening has reduced crash rates, though increased pedestrian injuries among ex-drivers highlight the need for alternative transport options.
• European Union: Italy requires fitness-to-drive tests every five years after 50, every three years after 70, and every two years after 80. Sweden and the Netherlands mandate driving tests from 70, balancing safety and mobility.
• United States: California requires in-person renewals and vision tests from 70, with restricted licences, for example daytime-only, as alternatives. Illinois mandates road tests from 75, correlating with lower insurance claims.
• Canada (Ontario): Drivers aged 80 and older complete vision and written tests every two years, with possible road tests and restrictions.
• New Zealand: Medical certificates are required every two years from 75, with on-road tests from 80 if recommended.

These systems use regular, objective assessments to ensure safety while offering restricted licences to maintain independence. Australia’s less proactive states could adopt similar measures, with NSW’s framework as a starting point.

Debunking the “Safer Seniors” myth

Some researchers, like Matthew Baldock from the University of Adelaide, argue older drivers have lower crash rates, citing Victoria Police data showing 145 road deaths and over 7,000 injuries caused by drivers aged 65 and older in the five years to June 2023.

Baldock claims older drivers have the lowest crash rate per licensed driver, partly because they drive less frequently. Swinburne University’s Amie Hayley similarly found no meaningful crash reduction from mandatory assessments. These arguments, however, are flawed:

• Lower Mileage Skews Data: Older drivers’ lower crash rates stem from reduced driving frequency and shorter trips, often in low-risk areas. This masks higher risk per kilometre driven, as frailty increases injury severity. The Wantirna South crash shows how one error can be catastrophic.
• Crash Severity Matters: Baldock’s focus on crash frequency ignores the disproportionate severity of crashes involving older drivers, where frailty amplifies outcomes.
• Weak Comparative Analysis: Studies comparing jurisdictions, like Hayley’s reference to Japan, often fail to account for differences in traffic density or enforcement, limiting their relevance to Australia’s urban contexts.
• Self-Regulation Is Unreliable: Cognitive decline can impair self-awareness, making self-regulation ineffective, as potential medical episodes in crashes like Wantirna South suggest.

These flaws highlight that low crash rates do not equal low risk. With Australia’s roads growing busier, relying on self-regulation is reckless.

Safety before sentiment

Senior advocates, such as Ben Rogers of the Council on the Ageing Victoria, label mandatory testing as “ageist,” arguing that ability, not age, should determine licensing. This view prioritises sentiment over safety.

Age-related impairments are a statistical reality, and testing ensures only capable drivers, of any age, remain licensed. If a 45-year-old with poor reflexes can lose their licence, a 91-year-old with similar issues should face the same scrutiny.

Concerns about isolation from licence loss are valid but can be addressed through restricted licences, driver-awareness programmes, or improved public transport, not by avoiding necessary safeguards. Public safety must outweigh fears of causing offence.

Time for a new engine

Australia needs a unified approach, with NSW’s model as a minimum. A proposed framework includes:

• Annual Medical Assessments from 75: Doctors should evaluate vision, cognition, and physical health, as in Queensland and the ACT, to catch impairments early.
• Driving Tests from 80: NSW’s biennial tests from 85, or earlier if recommended, should be standard, ensuring real-world competence.
• Restricted Licences: Daytime-only or local-area licences, as in California and NSW, maintain mobility while reducing risk.
• Support Systems: Invest in driver-awareness courses and public transport to address isolation, as suggested by senior advocates.

The Wantirna South tragedy, like others before it, is a stark reminder of the cost of inaction. Australia cannot afford a patchwork system where safety depends on where you live.

By adopting NSW’s rigorous standards nationally, we can protect lives while respecting capable older drivers. It’s time to prioritise safety over sentiment and ensure our roads are safe for all.