BMA advising GPs that road safety is a priority

[Jakob W]

One would hope that's a roundabout way of grassing her up with plausible deniability, but probably not...

[spindrift]

He says she finally gave up her car keys after she crashed into a wall and bust her leg. This was after family members had refused to get in a car with her. It's a strange article.

[barakta]

I still have a legit provisional in a different legal name and had some lessons in 1998, never told DVLA my changes of address between 1999 and now - I had one lesson in 2005 but decided my shoulder was too dubious for a manual and I did want a manual licence. We couldn't afford an automatic so I ignored it.

Given increasing information about my visual processing issues I'm not inclined to drive and I don't believe yesterday's "specialist" that I could "train my brain" safely to do so as I don't trust myself and I suspect under stress my visual processing will always go to shit.  I will write to the neuro-opthalmologist and ask for some advice and a letter confirming I shouldn't drive so I can surrender my licence and make sure I can retain my spazz passen for buses etc.

[hellymedic]

There are probably many people in a similar situation to him.
GPs don't want to 'grass'.
Families don't want to 'grass'.

[Pancho]

There are probably many people in a similar situation to him.
GPs don't want to 'grass'.
Families don't want to 'grass'.

And a policy that's based on people in trusting family or professional relationships grassing on one another is inevitably going to fail. (Or, if successful, it would be evidence that we lived in such a fear-ridden dystopia that getting run over would be a mercy.)

Pilots need a medical completed at a designated centre in order to fly. I see no reason why the same principle can't apply to drivers (who are far more likely to kill other people than pilots). Cost, of course, billed to the wannabe driver.

[contango]

Driving was a privilege when people worked near where they lived (in the village or in tied housing if they were farm hands, in the colliery village if they were miners, in a fishing village if they were fishermen ...). It was a privilege when only the upper class (and Mr Toad) coud afford to buy a car. The world has moved on.

Those days are gone. In these days of long distance commuting and hopeless public transport driving is a necessity and, indeed, a right. Once the right is withdrawn you can expect a significant decline in your standard of living.

Driving is not a right.  It should never be considered a right.  The problem is that we have come to regard it as such - and in so doing, we have normalised excusing the inexcusable.

Perhaps, but the ability to move around to seek employment shouldn't be considered a privilege.

It's all well and good to say people should move house to be closer to their work but sadly reality isn't always as convenient as utopia. What happens where children are at school, or where the employment in question doesn't pay enough to be able to afford to live anywhere near it? I'm thinking of situations like junior medical staff in expensive cities, or perhaps specialist research staff who work in cities (London being the most obvious example) who can't afford to live near work and whose skills are sufficiently specialised that "find another job" isn't a simple option.

Of course people living and working in London have more public transport options than people in most of the country, as long as you don't need to be getting in and out at silly hours. But that's assuming they can afford to live sufficiently close to a usable public transport point that they can sensibly get there without using a car. If, say, you're living 30 minutes walk from the nearest public transport then walking from the station to home in the dark isn't hugely desirable, especially if you're female (I know people in a situation not entirely unlike this).

[contango]

There are probably many people in a similar situation to him.
GPs don't want to 'grass'.
Families don't want to 'grass'.

And a policy that's based on people in trusting family or professional relationships grassing on one another is inevitably going to fail. (Or, if successful, it would be evidence that we lived in such a fear-ridden dystopia that getting run over would be a mercy.)

Pilots need a medical completed at a designated centre in order to fly. I see no reason why the same principle can't apply to drivers (who are far more likely to kill other people than pilots). Cost, of course, billed to the wannabe driver.

... which is all well and good except for the irritation that there are vastly more drivers than there are pilots. Why not ban cyclists who have not passed a medical test while we're at it - think of the dangers to pedestrians if a cyclist lost control and crashed into them.

[Ruthie]

We do expect a certain lifestyle in our culture.

A couple of senior doctors I work with have their family located elsewhere in the country, in very nice houses, but because of the requirement to live near the hospital these doctors stay in hospital accommodation during the week. 

Hospital accommodation tends to be very grim indeed.

Could you stay in a grim shared bedsit in London for the price of a train season ticket? 

In our culture that'd not be an option, but it's only cultural.

[Pickled Onion]

We do expect a certain lifestyle in our culture.

A couple of senior doctors I work with have their family located elsewhere in the country, in very nice houses, but because of the requirement to live near the hospital these doctors stay in hospital accommodation during the week. 

Hospital accommodation tends to be very grim indeed.

Could you stay in a grim shared bedsit in London for the price of a train season ticket? 

In our culture that'd not be an option, but it's only cultural.

Yes, quite easily. A season from my local station to London is £700 a month, which will pay for quite a nice room in a shared house or flat. Not in one of the trendy areas, naturally, but not out in the sticks either.

My boss does exactly that - stays in a shared house within a short cycle ride of the office, then works from home on Fridays.

[Cudzoziemiec]

...sadly reality isn't always as convenient as utopia.

Too true! In a utopia where people were willing and able to make sensible judgments about their ability to drive, we wouldn't even need driving tests. Reality always involves compromises and hard decisions.

[Regulator]

Something called Tom Uttley in the Mail says that he can't and will not grass his mum up to the DVLA even though he says she muddes up the pedals and crashes every two weeks.

One would hope that's a roundabout way of grassing her up with plausible deniability, but probably not...

He says she finally gave up her car keys after she crashed into a wall and bust her leg. This was after family members had refused to get in a car with her. It's a strange article.

She's dead... so I don't think plausible deniability is an issue.

[Morat]

I surrendered my driving license because I knew I would fail a medical.

All that being reported to the DVLA means is that you get a letter saying "If you surrender your license voluntarily, we'll give it you back when you ask for it and arrange a medical. If you fail the medical, you will lose the license again. If you choose not to surrender your license, you may continue drive until your medical, and you may continue to drive for X years provided you pass the medical. We may arrange another medical in the future."

(Not exact wording, it's been a couple of years since I got my letter.)

If people reckon they can pass a medical, then they shouldn't really be fearing being referred for one. If they know they won't, the DVLA treats you like an adult: if you say "actually, my doctor's right, I'm not fit to drive" then when you contact them to say "I'm fit to drive now", they assume you're being sensible because you were being sensible when you gave it up and let you drive until/unless they can prove that you're not fit.

I know it sounds awfully like the "If you've got nothing to fear then you've got nothing to hide" argument (which is a load of bollocks) but in this case, really, it kinda is that situation… the medical is subjective. Because my safety hinges on how recently I took medication, I got told "If you tell the DVLA doctor that you know you can safely drive a car between about 8am and 7pm and therefore you'll only drive it during those times, you'll probably pass, with a note on your file so that if you ever get stopped outside of those times for poor driving outside of those times, they'll probably take your license away for driving when you knew you weren't safe to".

(I actually chose to give up my license because I didn't need the stress of going through the medical, plus I knew that being banned from driving on medical grounds = free bus/train travel, and I'm a student… I have what TfGM calls a "severe and enduring mental health condition" which means I can even travel off-peak…)

I honestly wish everyone was as rational and sensible as you, and I also wish that more areas could have public transport that would support this sort of realistic decision making.

[ian]

Overheard two women at the swimming pool today, discussing one of their mother's failing driving abilities that had resulted in several accidents. Her solution it seemed was buy her an automatic so she wouldn't be 'so confused'.

[hellymedic]

Overheard two women at the swimming pool today, discussing one of their mother's failing driving abilities that had resulted in several accidents. Her solution it seemed was buy her an automatic so she wouldn't be 'so confused'.

EEK!
It seems pedal confusion is a frequent cause of (sometimes lethal) crashes in the elderly...
...I am very relieved my Dad stopped driving after he had such a crash (zero casualties)

[Morat]

I don't really have a problem with this. If I have a medical condition which would make me a dangerous driver I'd expect the GP (or hospital) to inform the DVLA, just as they would inform the Plod if my mental state gave them concern over my fitness to hold a shotgun certificate.

After all, it's not inconceivable that the condition (in either case) might impair my ability to make the judgment for myself.

[trekker12]

Perhaps something will come out of this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35025408

[hellymedic]

I am still at a loss as to how doctors and others can defend themselves from serial deliberate liars.

It is possible that given more time to discuss Clarke together, his medics might have prevented him driving and spotted inconsistencies in his story. What any human can achieve in a few minutes with a person who has a complex history of many decades is limited though, even if a patient is truthful.

Untangling lies adds an unmanageable burden IME.

Doctors are not employed to try patients.

[Morat]

I am still at a loss as to how doctors and others can defend themselves from serial deliberate liars.

It is possible that given more time to discuss Clarke together, his medics might have prevented him driving and spotted inconsistencies in his story. What any human can achieve in a few minutes with a person who has a complex history of many decades is limited though, even if a patient is truthful.

Untangling lies adds an unmanageable burden IME.

Doctors are not employed to try patients.

Definitely not employed to try patients, but they should be concerned it should be possible (even encouraged IMO) for them to report their concerns to the relevant authorities who would then do the testing.

[hellymedic]

Agreed but an episode that would be worrisome for a doctor is deliberately misdescribed, I just don't see what can be done.

Clarke described his loss of consciousness sitting at the wheel of a stationary bus as a faint queuing in a hot canteen...

[Regulator]

Agreed but an episode that would be worrisome for a doctor is deliberately misdescribed, I just don't see what can be done.

Clarke described his loss of consciousness sitting at the wheel of a stationary bus as a faint queuing in a hot canteen...

I have to agree.  I think the Sheriff was looking to spread some of the blame....   perhaps to try and distract from the pisspoor performance of the Procurators Fiscal in this case.

[hellymedic]

Agreed but an episode that would be worrisome for a doctor is deliberately misdescribed, I just don't see what can be done.

Clarke described his loss of consciousness sitting at the wheel of a stationary bus as a faint queuing in a hot canteen...

I have to agree.  I think the Sheriff was looking to spread some of the blame....   perhaps to try and distract from the pisspoor performance of the Procurators Fiscal in this case.

Like all disasters, this was a multifactorial cascade of 'minor' issues.
Lying driver
Porous DVLA procedures
Poor HR and employment vetting
Festive Season slackness
Route through crowded street
Untrained bin crew
Lack of emergency brake/dead man's handle

[Morat]

I wouldn't agree with doctors being required to justify their decision to report or not report in these cases. I think reporting should be an option which a doctor can exercise when concerned, not a requirement to act as another arm of the Police.

I think I broadly agree with you, just from the other direction. If you see what I mean.

[ian]

Whilst it's true doctors shouldn't be expected to 'try' their patients, their should be better continuity of care, primary care isn't just an occasional fifteen minute session with a GP, and they should review histories, unsure handoffs between themselves and their colleagues, locums etc.

But yes, one factor in a multifactorial clusterfuck. No one cares about these things until something bad happens, unfortunately then comes the handwringing.

[Regulator]

I wouldn't agree with doctors being required to justify their decision to report or not report in these cases. I think reporting should be an option which a doctor can exercise when concerned, not a requirement to act as another arm of the Police.

I think I broadly agree with you, just from the other direction. If you see what I mean.

That is already the case.  But it isn't working.