Proposed new laws for drivers.

[styles]

Of course that sucks, but that still doesn't defend allowing people to continue driving when they are literally unsafe doing so or have been told not to due to medical issues, which is the point I'm making. Driving is something that can be taken away from you very quickly for very good reasons in circumstances that aren't actually that rare.

This.

To expand slightly, there's a couple of main ways to lose a licence.

The first is medical, which, as unfortunate as it is, is fundamentally a risk of living somewhere with poor transport connections. Public transport should be better even for many rural communities, but we can't let people continue driving when medically unfit just because it's inconvenient for them to be without a car. Many medical conditions result in people having to change circumstances, and in some extreme cases that may mean moving from a lifelong home to somewhere better connected to essential services.

The second is being disqualified for one or more driving offences. I actually think the UK strikes the right balance with its points system. If you're doing for speeding (but not ridiculous speeds), you get 3 points, if not a speed awareness course. You've got 12 points to 'play with' so you'd have to be habitually speeding to lose your licence this way. If you make some non-trivial driving mistakes but are not clearly racing or driving like an utter twonk, you might get 3 points for careless driving. If you use a mobile phone while driving, 6 points. For minor offences, you are given a minor punishment which doesn't result in loss of licence. If you make repeated minor errors, or serious issues like drink/drug/dangerous driving, you are rightly banned.

People reaching a 'certain age' who live somewhere where driving is necessary ought to plan for the not-unlikely eventuality that they may be unable to drive one day. Whether that's getting food and supplies delivered, finding a local cab firm, asking friends/family to help, using public transport, or ultimately possibly moving home, are all possibilities which should be thought about. And by a 'certain age' I don't necessarily mean elderly - if you're in your late 50s and obese with heart problems, plan for the day you may be diagnosed with diabetes and suffer a severe hypo at which point you must stop driving and inform DVLA (for example).

I have a family member who would love to live very remote, but with her diabetes and liver cirrhosis it would be a terrible decision, as she's already had her licence revoked once for the diabetes and no doubt it'll happen again some time in the next few years. So she just knows she can't live that far out, and is even considering moving to somewhere nearer town so she has better bus and minicab options.

 

[styles]

I wonder how the police will determine which passing drivers to require a roadside eye test from....

West Yorkshire Police warn drivers ahead of roadside eyesight checks

Police say drivers should ensure they get their eyesight checked regularly.

www.bbc.com

Drivers could face fines of up to £1,000 if they fail roadside eye tests, West Yorkshire Police said.

The force is participating in a national campaign which runs until 9 November involving road policing officers carrying out the checks.

Drivers will be asked to read a sign or number plate from a distance of 20m (about 65ft).

Motorists who drive with defective sight not only face fines but can receive three penalty points or even have their licence taken away under Cassie's Law.

"Checking your eyesight regularly is just as important as making sure your vehicle is roadworthy, whatever age you are," Sgt Jonathan Pickard said.

He said being able to read a vehicle plate from that distance helped ensure motorists could spot hazards and other road users in good time.

Sgt Pickard said for drivers who do not meet the requirement the message was clear.

"You must not drive, and doing so could put you and others at serious risk," he said.

He said drivers must also inform the DVLA of any eyesight condition affecting both eyes or risk prosecution.

Cassie's Law was introduced in 2013 and was inspired by the death of 16-year-old Cassie McCord.

She died in 2011 when Colin Horsfall, 87, lost control of his car in Colchester after failing an eye test days earlier.

As part of Operation Dark Night, the force will also check that vehicle headlights and brake lights are working, and that correct bike lights are being used.

Officers will also be engaging with horse-riding groups and other vulnerable road users to encourage the use of reflective clothing and lights.

"As the nights get darker, it's vital that all road users are aware of the importance of being seen and staying safe," Sgt Pickard said.

 

[The exile]

I wonder how the police will determine which passing drivers to require a roadside eye test from....

West Yorkshire Police warn drivers ahead of roadside eyesight checks

Police say drivers should ensure they get their eyesight checked regularly.

www.bbc.com

Those who have been stopped for a reason that suggests they might not have seen something, perhaps?

 

[Bikeman78]

Officers will also be engaging with horse-riding groups and other vulnerable road users to encourage the use of reflective clothing and lights.

"As the nights get darker, it's vital that all road users are aware of the importance of being seen and staying safe," Sgt Pickard said.

Perhaps they should engage with the people in motor vehicles about leaving us more space. Clearly the drivers have seen me or they would drive into the back of me.

 

[dgl]

This.

To expand slightly, there's a couple of main ways to lose a licence.

The first is medical, which, as unfortunate as it is, is fundamentally a risk of living somewhere with poor transport connections. Public transport should be better even for many rural communities, but we can't let people continue driving when medically unfit just because it's inconvenient for them to be without a car. Many medical conditions result in people having to change circumstances, and in some extreme cases that may mean moving from a lifelong home to somewhere better connected to essential services.

The second is being disqualified for one or more driving offences. I actually think the UK strikes the right balance with its points system. If you're doing for speeding (but not ridiculous speeds), you get 3 points, if not a speed awareness course. You've got 12 points to 'play with' so you'd have to be habitually speeding to lose your licence this way. If you make some non-trivial driving mistakes but are not clearly racing or driving like an utter twonk, you might get 3 points for careless driving. If you use a mobile phone while driving, 6 points. For minor offences, you are given a minor punishment which doesn't result in loss of licence. If you make repeated minor errors, or serious issues like drink/drug/dangerous driving, you are rightly banned.

People reaching a 'certain age' who live somewhere where driving is necessary ought to plan for the not-unlikely eventuality that they may be unable to drive one day. Whether that's getting food and supplies delivered, finding a local cab firm, asking friends/family to help, using public transport, or ultimately possibly moving home, are all possibilities which should be thought about. And by a 'certain age' I don't necessarily mean elderly - if you're in your late 50s and obese with heart problems, plan for the day you may be diagnosed with diabetes and suffer a severe hypo at which point you must stop driving and inform DVLA (for example).

I have a family member who would love to live very remote, but with her diabetes and liver cirrhosis it would be a terrible decision, as she's already had her licence revoked once for the diabetes and no doubt it'll happen again some time in the next few years. So she just knows she can't live that far out, and is even considering moving to somewhere nearer town so she has better bus and minicab options.

To the point of being medically banned from driving my sister is one of those that has had her licence suspended for medical reasons after a seizure at the wheel and the inability to get her seizures under control. She hadn't really had any issues before this and it's lucky that not only is public transport mostly acceptable around here but even more so that the seizure happend as she was slowly passing a parked car and not on the steep hill she was on mere minutes before.

Also when my dad had the first stroke he knew about, and that temporarily halted his driving, he lived out in a village a few miles away from the nearest town with shops and it was lucky that my step-mum could still drive otherwise they would have been in trouble. For family reasons they've had to move (which my dad didn't really want to do), but at least now they live somewhere that is close to a supermarket and other amenities.

 

[andy33gmail]

I think routine re-tests would be my choice for a new law. Perhaps every 10 years, for all drivers, with a year's grace if you fail

 

[AM9]

I think routine re-tests would be my choice for a new law. Perhaps every 10 years, for all drivers, with a year's grace if you fail

It should depend on how the driver failed. There are drivers who develop seriously bad habits that if not dealt with can create dangerous situations for others.

 

[PeterC]

I think routine re-tests would be my choice for a new law. Perhaps every 10 years, for all drivers, with a year's grace if you fail

We don't seem to have the capacity to give first tests at a reasonable timescale.

I think that licences should be renewed every 10 years with a theory test and evidence of an eye test in the previous 12 months plus evidence that glasses have been provided if required.

 

[D Mylchreest]

When I was taking driving lessons I said to the destructor something along the same lines as this thread, he replied that all that would happen is that people would continue driving but without insurance.
Police are such a rarity on the roads nowadays that I think drivers will just get away with it.

 

[bramling]

It should depend on how the driver failed. There are drivers who develop seriously bad habits that if not dealt with can create dangerous situations for others.

I’d start by getting medically unfit drivers off the road, and that includes people with ADHD-type issues who don’t have the patience to handle routine situations safely.

 

[AlterEgo]

When I was taking driving lessons I said to the destructor something along the same lines as this thread, he replied that all that would happen is that people would continue driving but without insurance.
Police are such a rarity on the roads nowadays that I think drivers will just get away with it.

You will be very rapidly picked up for no insurance by ANPR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You will be very rapidly picked up for no insurance by ANPR.

I've driven twice in recent years without a policy on the Motor Insurance Database (MID), in both cases due to taking out the policy just before picking up a new (to me) car and it taking a few days to get on there. In one case I barely got 2 miles down the road before being stopped and asked to evidence the policy (which obviously I could do as it did exist), in the other I got all the way to the North West and back over a weekend without it being picked up. So it can be very variable.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I’d start by getting medically unfit drivers off the road, and that includes people with ADHD-type issues who don’t have the patience to handle routine situations safely.

Really?
That's an astonishingly blinkered view of neurological conditions, and one I didn't expect to encounter on this website of all places. Do you perhaps want to clarify your comment?

There are indeed some road users who maybe need to work on their patience and/or anger management, but I'd be reluctant to put that down to them being "neurodiverse". It's more that some people need to learn how not to be a***holes regardless of whether they have a diagnosis of some sort.

 

[Harpo]

I’d start by getting medically unfit drivers off the road, and that includes people with ADHD-type issues who don’t have the patience to handle routine situations safely.

What’s your data source for the link to ADHD?

 

[bramling]

Really?
That's an astonishingly blinkered view of neurological conditions, and one I didn't expect to encounter on this website of all places. Do you perhaps want to clarify your comment?

There are indeed some road users who maybe need to work on their patience and/or anger management, but I'd be reluctant to put that down to them being "neurodiverse". It's more that some people need to learn how not to be a***holes regardless of whether they have a diagnosis of some sort.

Why is it blinkered? Operating a potentially lethal machine safety requires skill, judgement and patience. Someone predisposed, for whatever reason, to getting irritable and impulsive is simply not going to be a safe driver.

We have someone at my rowing club who everyone shudders if he’s in their boat as you just *know* it’s going to horrifically unbalanced. But worse he starts getting inpatient if standing at the riverside with the boat even for a few seconds, and starts pressurising people into doing stuff. One shudders to think what he’s like behind the wheel of a car.

You may well have a point about diagnoses though, which is why I said “ADHD-type” rather than honing in on any one specific thing. At the end of the day though safety should come first, like it generally does on the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have someone at my rowing club who everyone shudders if he’s in their boat as you just *know* it’s going to horrifically unbalanced. But worse he starts getting inpatient if standing at the riverside with the boat even for a few seconds, and starts pressurising people into doing stuff. One shudders to think what he’s like behind the wheel of a car.

I'd stick with "impatient person" and not bring neurodiversity into it as that is much more complex. Most impatient people aren't neurodiverse, they're just impatient.

 

[bramling]

I'd stick with "impatient person" and not bring neurodiversity into it as that is much more complex. Most impatient people aren't neurodiverse, they're just impatient.

There’s impatience and there’s impulsiveness, which aren’t quite the same thing. Being impulsive *is* associated with certain types of neurodivergence, and in a safety-critical setting is potentially highly dangerous.

Likewise, in the rowing boat scenario I mentioned, another manifestation of this is looking around at the slightest distraction - for example a bird flying overhead, someone cycling on the bank, a tree that looks like it’s leaning etc. What this then results in is the boat becoming unbalanced, and a failure to respond to commands due to the distraction. In a road vehicle that might mean veering into another lane, failing to spot a hazard, not noticing a cyclist, etc etc etc.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why is it blinkered? Operating a potentially lethal machine safety requires skill, judgement and patience. Someone predisposed, for whatever reason, to getting irritable and impulsive is simply not going to be a safe driver.

We have someone at my rowing club who everyone shudders if he’s in their boat as you just *know* it’s going to horrifically unbalanced. But worse he starts getting inpatient if standing at the riverside with the boat even for a few seconds, and starts pressurising people into doing stuff. One shudders to think what he’s like behind the wheel of a car.

You may well have a point about diagnoses though, which is why I said “ADHD-type” rather than honing in on any one specific thing. At the end of the day though safety should come first, like it generally does on the railway.

Your post read as if you were suggesting that people with conditions like ADHD should be barred from driving. Suitability for driving (or for any other activity which requires training and certification) should be on a case-by-case basis surely? Unless the person's condition is obviously prohibitive such as being legally blind.

 

[AlterEgo]

There’s impatience and there’s impulsiveness, which aren’t quite the same thing. Being impulsive *is* associated with certain types of neurodivergence, and in a safety-critical setting is potentially highly dangerous.

Likewise, in the rowing boat scenario I mentioned, another manifestation of this is looking around at the slightest distraction - for example a bird flying overhead, someone cycling on the bank, a tree that looks like it’s leaning etc. What this then results in is the boat becoming unbalanced, and a failure to respond to commands due to the distraction. In a road vehicle that might mean veering into another lane, failing to spot a hazard, not noticing a cyclist, etc etc etc.

Given that ADHD at a level which impairs driving ability is already a reportable condition to DVLA, what are you proposing should be done about it?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There’s impatience and there’s impulsiveness, which aren’t quite the same thing. Being impulsive *is* associated with certain types of neurodivergence, and in a safety-critical setting is potentially highly dangerous.

Likewise, in the rowing boat scenario I mentioned, another manifestation of this is looking around at the slightest distraction - for example a bird flying overhead, someone cycling on the bank, a tree that looks like it’s leaning etc. What this then results in is the boat becoming unbalanced, and a failure to respond to commands due to the distraction. In a road vehicle that might mean veering into another lane, failing to spot a hazard, not noticing a cyclist, etc etc etc.

I'd be surprised if someone with that level of difficulty in controlling themselves was able to pass the driving test in the first place to be honest. The fact they're a member of a rowing club suggests they aren't completely hopeless though, so maybe they were able to keep a lid on things for long enough to get through a test. If this person does in fact drive, then if I was a member of your club I'd be challenging them on their behaviour- if you can operate a vehicle safely then you should be able to stay focused enough to participate in a group activity. Being neurodiverse isn't an excuse for poor conduct (though it can be a partial explanation for it). I say that as someone "on the spectrum" myself.

 

[The exile]

Your post read as if you were suggesting that people with conditions like ADHD should be barred from driving. Suitability for driving (or for any other activity which requires training and certification) should be on a case-by-case basis surely? Unless the person's condition is obviously prohibitive such as being legally blind.

The vital importance of a comma (or not) before a relative pronoun.! For the above interpretation to be correct there would have to be one before the “who”.

 

[AlterEgo]

What’s your data source for the link to ADHD?

It is well documented that drivers with ADHD have more accidents and are less safe and competent. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23400213/

Results: ADHD drivers were significantly more likely to have more crashes, minor events, and g-force events. G-force events for the ADHD drivers involved significantly more risky and illegal, hyperactive/impulsive, and distracted behaviors. The g-force events of non-ADHD drivers were due to evasive, defensive driving or lapses in attention.

Conclusion: Increased risk for ADHD drivers may be the result of increased risk taking, increased hyperactivity/impulsivity or distraction behavior, and increased vulnerability to factors that interfere with driving in general, whereas the consequences of faulty driving were either higher or potentially higher in those drivers with ADHD.

In practice this is remedied by medication and this makes most people with ADHD competent to drive if they aren't otherwise.