The report makes relatively small reference to the age demographic and only in the context of the injuries and deaths resulting from traffic incidents. My comment was on
@Chester1's assertion:
"Unfortunately the second most dangerous drivers (the elderly) can" which specifically infers that elderly drivers are 'dangerous' (as in the second most 'dangerous' group) and it's unfortuante that they are allowed to drive. There is no evidence that older drivers either cause proportionately more incidents and certainly very little judgements on the prime causes of those incidents going against the older drivers. It is not 'a well established fact' and by conflating the two issues, the 'dangerous driver' point is unfounded and specious almost to the point of malicious.
The report does not make any reference to their driving standards being worse, or even more likely to cause incidents than other groups, it just acknowledges that a higher proportion of them suffer greater health consequences if they are involved in collisions. Most of the incidents that involve elderly drivers involve other motorists and may well have been caused by other drivers outside that age group.
That is why I asked
"does it indicate whether drivers were breaking any moving traffic legislation designed to improve safety?" to which there has been no answer.