reinforces the need for elderly drivesr to be assessed for fitness to drive.

[Flynn]

...it wouldn't be long before you start doing assessments on whether they are mentally competent...

That might not be such a bad idea: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ma...rnet-road-rage

I haven't checked the statistics on road fatalities but I'd wager speed and reckless driving kills more than elderly infirm drivers and a physical health check will never show whether you're a reckless inconsiderate driver.

According to the RAC Foundation young drivers between ages 15 - 24 are more likely to die on the roads than from any other cause: http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics.php?id=55

And according to Brake, young drivers aged 17 - 20 have more road traffic incidents than any other age group: http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/young-...hard-facts.htm

[Mik.M.]

Thumper is right DVLA have to be notified of ALL medical conditions by the doctor and the individual,bet niether did tho and it cost an innocent persons life.

[jacko]

given this lady s age and the fact that driving tests wern,t introduced untill 1934, she may not even have passed a driving test , let alone read a copy of a highway code .
the test in those day s would have been a very basic one indeed . something like driving forward 30 ft stopping and reversing 5 ft id imagine. . but she certainly would have gained experience ,im sure. . but reading the story i have strong doubts if she should have been driving at all . she is after all a very senior person and as the years roll on we do lose some of our ability to react as fast as younger driver s, i would also imagine her highway code skills would be very vague as even i have to swot up on all the new signs road layouts etc etc . and given her age / health . well need i say more. as for lawyers saying she could not help or forsee what happened , well that s what they do to help their clients , they are experts at twisting things . personally i think this lady should just admit she messed up .throw herself open to the mercy of the court and burn her driving licence ........i doubt if any one would take to the wheel again after causing that terrible accident,.a young woman died needlessly a husband was injured and made a widower , the grief go s on and on

[Humerous Vegetable]

Do you think there should be some way of naming and shaming those GPs who are responsibile for not reporting people who are no longer safe to be amongst us on our roads? They get paid for this.
Some of them appear to be scooping up large amounts of public finance for doing as little as possible to fulfil their public duties. They always seem to escape any kind of offical censure.

[Alice in Blunderland]

Do you think there should be some way of naming and shaming those GPs who are responsibile for not reporting people who are no longer safe to be amongst us on our roads? They get paid for this.
Some of them appear to be scooping up large amounts of public finance for doing as little as possible to fulfil their public duties. They always seem to escape any kind of offical censure.

Oh really !!

[badger]

I'm not sure about this requirement for doctors etc. There is a long list of notifiable medical conditions on the DVLA website which it seems most people, including medical professionals, are either not aware of or ignore because they can't face giving up their cars. A few years ago I had cataracts and everyone I saw, having done an eye test, said I was still OK to drive - doctor, optician, hospital consultant. Just to prove the point because I was pretty sure I couldn't do the reading number plate test I asked the police to test me and I failed. I surrendered my licence until after the op. but had no test before getting it back. We all know many people who should not be driving for various medical reasons but their doctors etc. don't tell them, nor do they inform the DVLA. Are there rules which are routinely ignored ? Or is there nothing except a reality check by the driver.

[jacko]

most important thing being, that if you have a certain medical condition that can impair your driving ability ,and you know it ,and do not inform the dvla, , then something happens , an accident you cause etc , the insurance company will not pay out . and that would make a huge difference especialy to third parties .

[beetlecrusher]

I have to agree with Alice - medical checks, like MOTs, are only ever as good as the day they are done.

[badger]

I have to agree with Alice - medical checks, like MOTs, are only ever as good as the day they are done.

My point is that if the medical expert tells someone they are fit to drive when they are not - what then? jacko is right - if you drive with a notifiable condition not only will the insurance company not pay out but you are driving illegally because not insured. There seems to be general, sometimes wilful, ignorance about all this.

[Alice in Blunderland]

Guidance given by GMC for doctors.

1 There is a clear public good in having a confidential
medical service. The fact that people are
encouraged to seek advice and treatment,
including for communicable diseases, benefits
society as a whole as well as the individual.
Confidential medical care is recognised in law as
being in the public interest. However, there can
also be a public interest in disclosing information:
to protect individuals or society from risks of
serious harm, such as serious communicable
diseases or serious crime; or to enable medical
research, education or other secondary uses of
information that will benefit society over time.
Personal information may, therefore, be disclosed
in the public interest, without patients’ consent,
and in exceptional cases where patients have
withheld consent, if the benefits to an individual or
to society of the disclosure outweigh both the
public and the patient’s interest in keeping the
information confidential. You must weigh the
harms that are likely to arise from non-disclosure
of information against the possible harm, both to
the patient and to the overall trust between
doctors and patients, arising from the release of
that information.
Disclosure of personal information about a patient
without consent may be justified in the public
interest if failure to disclose may expose others to
a risk of death or serious harm. You should still seek
the patient’s consent to disclosure if practicable
and consider any reasons given for refusal.

2 The Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA)
and Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) are legally
responsible for deciding if a person is medically unfit to
drive. This means they need to know if a driving licence
holder has a condition or is undergoing treatment that
may now, or in the future, affect their safety as a driver.

3 You should seek the advice of an experienced colleague
or the DVLA or DVA’s medical adviser if you are not
sure whether a patient may be unfit to drive. You
should keep under review any decision that they are fit,
particularly if the patient’s condition or treatments
change. The DVLA’s publication For Medical Practitioners
– At a glance Guide to the current Medical Standards of
Fitness to Drive includes information about a variety of
disorders and conditions that can impair a patient’s
fitness to drive.

4 The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA
or DVA about such a condition or treatment. However,
if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to
the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive
(if the patient is incapable of understanding this
advice, for example, because of dementia, you
should inform the DVLA or DVA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or
DVA about the condition.

5 If a patient refuses to accept the diagnosis, or the effect
of the condition on their ability to drive, you can
suggest that they seek a second opinion, and help
arrange for them to do so. You should advise the
patient not to drive in the meantime.

6 If a patient continues to drive when they may not be fit
to do so, you should make every reasonable effort to
persuade them to stop. As long as the patient agrees,
you may discuss your concerns with their relatives,
friends or carers.September 2009
Confidentiality: reporting concerns about patients to the DVLA or the DVA

7 If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop
driving, or you discover that they are continuing to
drive against your advice, you should contact the DVLA
or DVA immediately and disclose any relevant medical
information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.

8 Before contacting the DVLA or DVA you should try to
inform the patient of your decision to disclose personal
information. You should then also inform the patient in
writing once you have done so.

[jacko]

thank you Alice,

this is the part were all debating ..

4 The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA
or DVA about such a condition or treatment. However,
if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to
the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive
(if the patient is incapable of understanding this
advice, for example, because of dementia, you
should inform the DVLA or DVA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or
DVA about the condition.

[Alice in Blunderland]

thank you Alice,

this is the part were all debating ..

4 The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA
or DVA about such a condition or treatment. However,
if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to
the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive
(if the patient is incapable of understanding this
advice, for example, because of dementia, you
should inform the DVLA or DVA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or
DVA about the condition.

Yes however what if the GP has explained to the patience that they consider they should not be driving , the patient takes it on board and leaves the room. The GPs first port of call is the patient not necessarily the DVLA or the DVA. If the patient makes all the right noises leaves the room how is the GP going to know if they inform the DVLA or continue to drive. Its a fine line they have to tread when effectively breaching confidentiality. The example given was dementia but what level of dementia should you act upon initial stages or further down the road when the illness starts to kick in. Its easy to be an armchair medic and critic when we do not have the full facts and legalities to hand. The same goes for medications prescribed. How many people actually refrain from driving when they see the warning do not operate machinery whilst taking these tablets.
Lots of strong painkillers affect our driving ability yet many people still continue to drive.......whilst impaired. Its a minefield.