Van driver who crushed Deliveroo cyclist in Bristol had suffered 'medical episode'

Griff500 wrote:

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Yep that is definitely a loophole.

The problem is that the doctors aren't going to be able to spend enough time to really judge whether a person is fit to drive or not and to be fair, it's not really their area of expertise.

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

When an older driver is involved in an incident, regardless of whether there is fault attributed, the police have the authority to inform the DVLA of a possible medical condition, and they often do this.  Almost always this results in a free, DVSA driving test and, should the result go against the candidate, their licence is revoked.  Exactly this has recently happened to my next-door neighbour and he has accepted the outcome and sold his car.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent the person starting the whole procedure of obtaining a new licence, but few do.

mike the bike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

 

When an older driver is involved in an incident, regardless of whether there is fault attributed, the police have the authority to inform the DVLA of a possible medical condition, and they often do this.  Almost always this results in a free, DVSA driving test and, should the result go against the candidate, their licence is revoked.  Exactly this has recently happened to my next-door neighbour and he has accepted the outcome and sold his car.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent the person starting the whole procedure of obtaining a new licence, but few do.

Authority, yes, but it is not mandatory. If they had done so with my father, my life would have been easier. It should be made more difficult to get a licence back once surrendered.

If fact, the route you describe is open to all of us, and age doesn't come into it. You can shop your boss if you wish. The process is described on the DVLA site. I used it, but it took a few months to filter through. Shopping my old man made me feel a real shit, but it would have been worse to do nothing and see somebody hurt.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Yep that is definitely a loophole.

The problem is that the doctors aren't going to be able to spend enough time to really judge whether a person is fit to drive or not and to be fair, it's not really their area of expertise.

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

Except this is complete bollocks, GP's have been unable to give permission for people to drive for over 15 years, the decision on whether someone can drive or not lies purely with DVLA as I can testify from personal experience. I temporarily blacked out whilst driving, luckily on and empty road, approx 15 years ago, after numerous tests it was put down to chronic nervous exhaustion. I was advised. by the hospital I was admitted to, to report the blackout to DVLA and my licence was temporarily suspended and not re-instated until all the test resuts were sent to DVLA and referred to one of their doctors to make a decision. Where the system falls down is that it relies on self referral by the driver, GP's, Ambulance Services, Opticians and hospaitals are not allowed to make referrals to DVLA because of the Data Protection Act and there is no face to face examination by a DVLA doctor even if the driver does self refer. All of which means that there are a lot of people driving who should not be, because they do not self refer for fear of losing their licence. This isn't a loophole in the Law, it was a concious decision by politicians "because all drivers are completely honest" (sarcasm off) and it was it cheaper.  There needs a change in the law to require medical professionals to refer people to DVLA but this won't happen because there isn't the political will to do so.

Gus T wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Yep that is definitely a loophole.

The problem is that the doctors aren't going to be able to spend enough time to really judge whether a person is fit to drive or not and to be fair, it's not really their area of expertise.

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

Except this is complete bollocks, GP's have been unable to give permission for

 

Except that at no point did I say the doctor was able to give permission to drive! What I said was a checkbox medical form was submitted to DVLA (by the doctor), so please be careful throwing around the "complete bollocks" comments. There was no medical other than an eye test, and although the doctor would not discuss the content with me, he did admit that he was bound to comply only with verbal answers given by the patient. This was 4 years ago.

Gus T wrote:

Except this is complete bollocks, GP's have been unable to give permission for people to drive for over 15 years, the decision on whether someone can drive or not lies purely with DVLA as I can testify from personal experience.

Where the system falls down is that it relies on self referral by the driver, GP's, Ambulance Services, Opticians and hospaitals are not allowed to make referrals to DVLA because of the Data Protection Act ....

This isn't a loophole in the Law, it was a concious decision by politicians "because all drivers are completely honest" (sarcasm off) and it was it cheaper.  There needs a change in the law to require medical professionals to refer people to DVLA but this won't happen because there isn't the political will to do so.

 

Except this is complete bollocks. The UK medical profession has clear guidelines that they are under an obligation to inform DVLA when a patient continues to drive against medical advice, that patient confidentiality is not absolute, and that the public good must take precedence. 

https://www.mddus.com/resources/resource-library/news-digest/2017/april/...

As for the "15 year" nonsense. Doctors have always had the ability to issue medical advice not to drive (don't drive while on this medication...don't drive until 2 weeks after the op)  and there is a raft of government documents issued to the medical profession on assessing various conditions. In the specific case of strokes (as per the post about my father), the clear instruction is not to drive for 4 weeks, ands only resume driving after clearance by your doctor. There is no requirement on an individual to notify DVLA of a stroke, so the decision rests totally with the doctor.

burtthebike wrote:

Just comparing the response to this incident, where no-one seems to be blaming the driver, with the cyclist/pedestrian incident in London, where everyone is blaming the cyclist, despite the fact that the pedestrian ran out in front of him at a pedestrian crossing where the lights were green for the cyclist and red for the pedestrian.

It's true; if you're a cyclist you're automatically guilty.

I do so hope the government investigation into cyclists killing pedestrians will be looking into cases like that, where it is entirely the pedestrian's fault.

Fleeing the scene is never a good look

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Amazing how quick the police can get medical specialists to carry out the tests and back up his claim. Possibly the most efficient police force in the country despite the much publicised cuts to their budget.

StoopidUserName wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Amazing how quick the police can get medical specialists to carry out the tests and back up his claim. Possibly the most efficient police force in the country despite the much publicised cuts to their budget.

Alternatively, "I had a medical episode " is the new "Sun was in my eyes".

StoopidUserName wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Amazing how quick the police can get medical specialists to carry out the tests and back up his claim. Possibly the most efficient police force in the country despite the much publicised cuts to their budget.

Alternatively, "I had a medical episode " is the new "Sun was in my eyes".

Except for handing in your driving license and being examined at a hospital.