Author Topic: Not happy, DVLA have now decided I shouldn't be driving for the next 6 months  (Read 3327 times)

Pedal Castro

  • so talented I can run with scissors - ouch!
    • Two beers or not two beers...
Two weeks after getting a letter from the neurosurgeon to say that all contusions etc are completely healed I now get a letter from the DVLA telling me to stop driving immediately.  If it were that serious why is the protocol carry on driving while we consider the case as it is impossible for an acute brain injury to be any better than completely healed surely.  I will send a letter with a copy of the last letter from the neurosurgeon in the hope that they will reconsider my case otherwise I have to appeal it at a magistrates court, and put an official complaint in.

In order to stop it sitting at the bottom of a huge pile of stuff at the desk of an overworked clerk my MP will also write on my behalf to speed up the process. Mrs PC is not keen on driving me to work every day, nor does she think I'm ready for cycling in yet so I gave DVLA 5 working days to respond...

Pooh - Hope this is resolved.

The DVLA are carp at resolving this sort of thing.

Get deliberately drunk, mow down someone, say it was all a mistake - no ban. Suspected of epilepsy, TBI, but never caused an accident; insta-ban.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
It really ought to be insta-ban and not fuck around sorting things out if you get the all-clear.  This half-arsed approach isn't helping anyone.   >:(

ian

What Kim says. The default should be not-driving until someone with suitable expertise gives the OK. That's the way it worked for me in the US (hough to be honest, I couldn't fit the wheelchair in a Subaru anyway, so it was a bit moot until I could walk.)

The problem, of course, is that we've created a society where driving is often a minimum requirement.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
I'm now on a regime of 3-yearly license renewal on a medical basis, and regularly questioned by medics that I understand the rules around me driving.  On one of the courses I attended, they told us of a guy who in his case wasn't having hypo symptoms, wasn't following the testing requirements and ended up going hypo and mowing down a pedestrian.  He ended up with a jail sentence.

I hope you get your situation resolved quickly, but I can understand the DVLAs caution here.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

That sounds very crap   :(

Unfortunately I can see one problem you might have is that there is a difference between contusions being healed (they are effectively physical bruises in the brain) and a brain returning to completely normal function. It is much harder to be sure a seizure or similar won't occur, so waiting 6 months to see if it does is considered standard safe practice. I'm not sure there is any test your consultant could run that would convince the DVLA otherwise TBH. How did the DVLA find out about it in the first place?

Pedal Castro

  • so talented I can run with scissors - ouch!
    • Two beers or not two beers...
They found out because 2 months after the crash I went to the neuro-rehab appointment (luckily I got a cancelled slot otherwise it would have been another month or two) and the doctor there said I needed to.

DVLA now seem to be on the case and I have a "personal" contact person so expecting my licence to be reissued with effect from 8 April which is as early as seems possible. When asked, Vicky, my DVLA PA ;-) said that the law does not permit them to stop me driving until they have done their investigation, even though they then banned me from driving for exactly what I declared on the original form. They are also looking at reworking the template letter I was sent so that it is not so ambiguous.

Nothing personal PC but the system is so  unfit for purpose it is potentially dangerous. 

I was under the impression that one of the responsibilities of holding a driving licence requires the holder to exercise good judgement in deciding whether they are fit to drive.  Clearly such a judgement is entirely subjective.  How many folk drive even though their sight and reactions are no longer up to it?

Once again I see the value in compulsory testing every five years and annually for anybody with a medical issue or who has previously been banned.  What price road safety?

Pedal Castro

  • so talented I can run with scissors - ouch!
    • Two beers or not two beers...
Nothing personal PC but the system is so  unfit for purpose it is potentially dangerous. 


Absolutely agree, I was chatting about this to one of my parents last week and she said that she has a 17yo nephew who is desperate to start driving but has to wait exactly three months after his last "dizzy spell" before he can. He was a bit upset to suffer one exactly three months after the last one!!!

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Nothing personal PC but the system is so  unfit for purpose it is potentially dangerous. 

I was under the impression that one of the responsibilities of holding a driving licence requires the holder to exercise good judgement in deciding whether they are fit to drive.  Clearly such a judgement is entirely subjective.  How many folk drive even though their sight and reactions are no longer up to it?

Once again I see the value in compulsory testing every five years and annually for anybody with a medical issue or who has previously been banned.  What price road safety?

I can't see the value in having thousands of type 1 diabetics (already on a 3 year restricted license) needing to resit a test every year - there are very clear requirements about driving that are revisited at every appointment, in my case every 6 months. Or take my colleague who had two strokes, the underlying cause was a hole in the heart, which has now been fixed and he's been cleared for return to work and driving, why would he need an annual driving test?
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Why fuck about, how about compulsory re-testing every n years for everyone?

Whether that's a medical assessment (vision, conditions likely to result in sudden loss of attention/control/consciousness, side-effcts of medications, that sort of thing), or a test of driving skills left as an exercise for the reader.

I know that pilots and train drivers and so on get periodic medical checks, why shouldn't everyone who's licenced to operate dangerous machinery in a public place?  Oh wait, roads are *special*.


"Okay, ECG looks fine."  *tickybox*  "Still diabetic?"
"Of course."
"Having any hypos?"
"Only at night when I've got the lurgy."
"Okay." *tickybox* "Right, let's check your vision..."

I agree Kim but drivers are very sensitive about their subject judgement and abilities - they are all perfect.  OK, I am being slightly cynical but regular testing has to start somewhere.

Nothing personal PC but the system is so  unfit for purpose it is potentially dangerous. 

I was under the impression that one of the responsibilities of holding a driving licence requires the holder to exercise good judgement in deciding whether they are fit to drive.  Clearly such a judgement is entirely subjective.  How many folk drive even though their sight and reactions are no longer up to it?

Once again I see the value in compulsory testing every five years and annually for anybody with a medical issue or who has previously been banned.  What price road safety?

I can't see the value in having thousands of type 1 diabetics (already on a 3 year restricted license) needing to resit a test every year - there are very clear requirements about driving that are revisited at every appointment, in my case every 6 months. Or take my colleague who had two strokes, the underlying cause was a hole in the heart, which has now been fixed and he's been cleared for return to work and driving, why would he need an annual driving test?


When somebody is cleared then they are cleared.  Back to a five year cycle.  I'm not advocating retesting everybody indiscriminately. 

I do think though that retesting every five years is a good and timely reminder to all drivers that driving is not a right, not a privilege, but is in fact a controlled and licensed activity that brings with it great responsibility. 

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
I agree Kim but drivers are very sensitive about their subject judgement and abilities - they are all perfect.  OK, I am being slightly cynical but regular testing has to start somewhere.

Right.  Let's start with having to provide a copy of a recent vision test when you renew your driving licence, and work up from there.

I do think though that retesting every five years is a good and timely reminder to all drivers that driving is not a right, not a privilege, but is in fact a controlled and licensed activity that brings with it great responsibility.

+1

I do wonder how many would choose not to re-new. I reckon I'd lapse just because it wouldn't be worth it for what usually amounts to a couple of hundred miles per year. Of course then I'd have an ID problem.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
I agree Kim but drivers are very sensitive about their subject judgement and abilities - they are all perfect.  OK, I am being slightly cynical but regular testing has to start somewhere.

Nothing personal PC but the system is so  unfit for purpose it is potentially dangerous. 

I was under the impression that one of the responsibilities of holding a driving licence requires the holder to exercise good judgement in deciding whether they are fit to drive.  Clearly such a judgement is entirely subjective.  How many folk drive even though their sight and reactions are no longer up to it?

Once again I see the value in compulsory testing every five years and annually for anybody with a medical issue or who has previously been banned.  What price road safety?

I can't see the value in having thousands of type 1 diabetics (already on a 3 year restricted license) needing to resit a test every year - there are very clear requirements about driving that are revisited at every appointment, in my case every 6 months. Or take my colleague who had two strokes, the underlying cause was a hole in the heart, which has now been fixed and he's been cleared for return to work and driving, why would he need an annual driving test?


When somebody is cleared then they are cleared.  Back to a five year cycle.  I'm not advocating retesting everybody indiscriminately. 

I do think though that retesting every five years is a good and timely reminder to all drivers that driving is not a right, not a privilege, but is in fact a controlled and licensed activity that brings with it great responsibility.

You are advocating annual for anyone with a medical condition ^^^.  I will have a medical condition for the rest of my life.

Which medical conditions are we talking about now.  T2 diabetes as well even when insulin is not involved? Amputees, in case they suddenly lose the use of the other arm/leg? Someone with false teeth in case they lose them while driving?

You're not being clear on what you want here.

Retest every 10 years or even 5 at a pinch would seem reasonable - but do I then get my license for that full period, or am I still on a 3 year renewal.  Lots of variables here, not all simples.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Used to be 3 year renewals for everybody, regardless of medical condition. Back in the 1950s or so (not sure till when).
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

As you ask Dave, if you're clear then you are on a five year retest cycle.  If you have a condition then it could be annual, it could be every six months or two years - whatever period is judged necessary for your condition by those that know best.

I'm making suggestions and wanting the debate to evolve.  I'm just as interested in people putting forward an argument for not retesting at all.

I also think by the way that if you have a condition that normally requires that your licence is suspended then that should become effective immediately upon diagnosis and not left for months in a bureaucratic pissing contest.  On top of that I think that people who clock up 12 points* or more at any one time** should be banned for at least a decade and have to retest before driving once again.  Draconian perhaps but you have to be careless at best to keep accumulating points.

I also despise the ability of drivers to be able to rack up many points and still keep their licences.  How utterly and incomprehensibly ridiculous.  If you need your licence then respect it and drive properly.   

*  Or whatever start point for such a ban seems reasonable.  I chose 12 as that is the current point at which a driver can lose their licence if I understand the process correctly.

**  Points that drop off after two years or whatever it is are not included in my thinking but I'm happy to have a simple 'lifetime allowance' of points before a long term ban and full test before driving again.

Pedal Castro

  • so talented I can run with scissors - ouch!
    • Two beers or not two beers...
Well they sent my licence back but with two missing groups, minibus and <7500kg. At least that gives me an excuse not to take teams to away matches this term.