Aggrieved rant....!

[john-e89]

What the hell is going on with common sense, or the huge lack of it, when a 77yr old lady in the village can drive again one month after a minor stroke, yet I can't drive for a year after two blackouts 4 and 5 months ago due to cough syncopy, now no issues after the doc made the correct call with meds, not had any issues since....?? it's not Sue, the lady I'm pissed at as I'm glad she's ok as she's very nice, but FFS even the doc said if it made any difference she'd happily give me a clean bill of health. But no, makes no difference, it's a year off the road, blanket, no arguments.

Pisses me off like I cant tell you.... :x :x

 

[SonnyA85]

It's scary the number of old folk still on the road because they reckon it's better to have their license taken off them after an awful incident has occured than give it up before said incident occurs. As if their right to drive is somewhat more important than others right to safety.

I suppose it's better to be safe than sorry. We sold my grandads car to get him off the road 2 years back. We just give him lifts now to wherever he needs to go.

 

[BeeEmm]

It's scary the number of old folk still on the road because they reckon it's better to have their license taken off them after an awful incident has occured than give it up before said incident occurs. As if their right to drive is somewhat more important than others right to safety.

I suppose it's better to be safe than sorry. We sold my grandads car to get him off the road 2 years back. We just give him lifts now to wherever he needs to go.

Have you come up with an age that you think people should stop driving?

 

[SonnyA85]

It's scary the number of old folk still on the road because they reckon it's better to have their license taken off them after an awful incident has occured than give it up before said incident occurs. As if their right to drive is somewhat more important than others right to safety.

I suppose it's better to be safe than sorry. We sold my grandads car to get him off the road 2 years back. We just give him lifts now to wherever he needs to go.

Have you come up with an age that you think people should stop driving?

I suppose mental competence is the most important factor combined with reaction times.

I would say once you hit 65 you should need to do another driving test every 2-5 years but it's a much more mental based test. Split 50/50 where a computer records your reaction time and ability to comprehend danger, etc. As well as a driving part. To see how you cope on the roads.

Remember people start retiring around this age so some people will be knackered and others fine.

My grandad is in his 80's when we finally got rid of his car for instance. So there is no specific age it depends on individual basis but I'd say retirement age sounds about right

 

[IRD]

There are unquestionably elderly people on the roads who shouldn’t be there. But dangerous driving is not just related to old age. Why do you think insurance premiums are so high for young drivers? The problem really is how you ‘weed out’ those who are dangerous before they cause an accident. I am sure that we all know people of all ages who are a menace. But it is wrong to generalise.

 

[Smartbear]

And yet young drivers have the most accidents :?
Rob

 

[MikeyH]

If we made drivers have a test at 65 yrs old and say 50% failed that would be half our membership, maybe me included. :rofl: :rofl:

 

[1536Z4]

I would say once you hit 65

You may change your mind when you are 65 :rofl:

 

[pvr]

John - is there an appeal process?

 

[buzyg]

Sounds like your on the wrong side of a poor rule John. Your rant is valid sir.

I for one was probably a more dangerous driver when I was younger, made more poor decisions/mistakes behind the wheel, I fortunately got away with, than I do now. Experience counts for a heck of a lot. No doubt there will come a point were the balance swings back the other way, due to mental and/or physical deterioration. My dad kept driving after he had Alzheimer's, until he left the parking break off one day and his car rolled into others. After that mum stopped him driving.

Another, in his 60s now, who scoffs at the suggestion of 65. It really has to be case by case IMHO. If you muck up or are ill/disabled at 21, you should be treated the same at 91. If you don't then just get on with life and enjoy driving. :driving:

 

[Vornwend]

I think the length of ban will be risk based. This extract from the government's fitness to drive web page on cough syncope:

"Having experienced an episode or episodes of cough syncope, a person has identified themselves as being in a higher risk group that is predisposed to cough syncope. Therefore, even if the cough syncope episode occurred during a short-lived period of increased cough (such as an episode of acute respiratory infection), this would not alter the fact that the person is then at a higher risk of experiencing an episode of cough syncope whenever they cough, regardless of the cause.

Treatment, management or resolution of the condition which caused the cough does not reduce the risk of syncope with further episodes of cough"

The last sentence is probably the key one?

On the question of how safe any of us are behind the wheel at any age I think attitude is also an important factor. No easy way for an external agency to assess that on an individual basis but maybe AI (black boxes etc) may one day be the way to determine it? Insurance companies obviously have access to lots of generalised data hence the higher costs for younger drivers etc

 

[SonnyA85]

It really depends on the person as you guys say a lot of young drivers are bad drivers.

But old age does put your competency into question you cannot outrun ageing. I'd much rather hand up my driving gloves before being forced to because of a bad incident.

By the time I'm 65 we will have autonomous driving with zero need to drive yourself. So I have zero issues with hanging my gloves forever tbh.

 

[pvr]

I think the length of ban will be risk based. This extract from the government's fitness to drive web page on cough syncope:

"Having experienced an episode or episodes of cough syncope, a person has identified themselves as being in a higher risk group that is predisposed to cough syncope. Therefore, even if the cough syncope episode occurred during a short-lived period of increased cough (such as an episode of acute respiratory infection), this would not alter the fact that the person is then at a higher risk of experiencing an episode of cough syncope whenever they cough, regardless of the cause.

Treatment, management or resolution of the condition which caused the cough does not reduce the risk of syncope with further episodes of cough"

The last sentence is probably the key one?

But that means that the one year is an arbitrary number which has no impact on the risk (i.e. you are as much of a risk at 1 year as you are at 1 month).
In a way it would sure make you hesitant to "report" yourself if you have an episode for the first time ever as seeking treatment does not seem to make any difference and you just get a random length ban.

 

[Vornwend]

I think the length of ban will be risk based. This extract from the government's fitness to drive web page on cough syncope:

"Having experienced an episode or episodes of cough syncope, a person has identified themselves as being in a higher risk group that is predisposed to cough syncope. Therefore, even if the cough syncope episode occurred during a short-lived period of increased cough (such as an episode of acute respiratory infection), this would not alter the fact that the person is then at a higher risk of experiencing an episode of cough syncope whenever they cough, regardless of the cause.

Treatment, management or resolution of the condition which caused the cough does not reduce the risk of syncope with further episodes of cough"

The last sentence is probably the key one?

But that means that the one year is an arbitrary number which has no impact on the risk (i.e. you are as much of a risk at 1 year as you are at 1 month).
In a way it would sure make you hesitant to "report" yourself if you have an episode for the first time ever as seeking treatment does not seem to make any difference and you just get a random length ban.

It doesn't really say that. There are varying lengths of ban for various conditions which suggests risk reduces over time? Some conditions also have different lengths of ban depending on type of vehicle you drive - eg coach or lorry drivers sometimes have longer bans. This suggests that the risk of harm to others is also a factor in determining the length of ban.

Yes, the self reporting dilemma occurred to me too but set against that is the duty of care we all have to others and the huge risk of prosecution that you would expose yourself to should something bad happen and it then emerged that you had not reported yourself.

 

[john-e89]

I think the length of ban will be risk based. This extract from the government's fitness to drive web page on cough syncope:

"Having experienced an episode or episodes of cough syncope, a person has identified themselves as being in a higher risk group that is predisposed to cough syncope. Therefore, even if the cough syncope episode occurred during a short-lived period of increased cough (such as an episode of acute respiratory infection), this would not alter the fact that the person is then at a higher risk of experiencing an episode of cough syncope whenever they cough, regardless of the cause.

Treatment, management or resolution of the condition which caused the cough does not reduce the risk of syncope with further episodes of cough"

The last sentence is probably the key one?

But that means that the one year is an arbitrary number which has no impact on the risk (i.e. you are as much of a risk at 1 year as you are at 1 month).
In a way it would sure make you hesitant to "report" yourself if you have an episode for the first time ever as seeking treatment does not seem to make any difference and you just get a random length ban.

It doesn't really say that. There are varying lengths of ban for various conditions which suggests risk reduces over time? Some conditions also have different lengths of ban depending on type of vehicle you drive - eg coach or lorry drivers sometimes have longer bans. This suggests that the risk of harm to others is also a factor in determining the length of ban.

Yes, the self reporting dilemma occurred to me too but set against that is the duty of care we all have to others and the huge risk of prosecution that you would expose yourself to should something bad happen and it then emerged that you had not reported yourself.

The piece you're quoting is exactly why Im so aggrieved and mentioned no common sense Vornwend. Your quite right that the last sentence quoted which you point out is key but in that quote there is no mention of a time scale thus suggesting I'm banned for life then. I'd quite like to know where you got it from if you wouldn't mind please.

The subject of reporting is an interesting one. After the first blackout on 1st November last year I put it down to a one off choking thing eating peanuts, didn't give it another thought tbh, until the 2nd one 22nd Jan this year when I looked it up and doc confirmed cough syncope. So here's the rub, a medical GP can correctly identify the issue, asminister meds to cure it which is the case yet you don't even get a 6 month ban Instead of a year even with said GP willing to declare I'm fit to drive, yet a 77yr old only one month after a stroke is ok to drive, it's crazy. Let's say I get to 21st Jan with no more incidents then have another 10 mins to midnight, it's another 6 months ban. If I dont have another for 4yrs then have one it's 6 months ban again. Where does this one year, no arguments ban come from...? It's ludicrous. The impact this is having on my new business, finances and my wife is quite heavy. I haven't submitted my licence on the grounds of the ridiculous lengths the DVLA are taking on issuing new ones once you can drive again, 6months wait is not uncommon, the hell with that. Im not driving as it's morally wrong, plus I wouldn't be insured, but why am I any more of a risk after 6 months than a year..? I'm not, I'm cured, coughing has stopped, meds are working perfectly as they're designed to do, if we're going to ignore them and the GP's what does that say about any medical intervention. Zero sense to this whole scenario.

 

[john-e89]

John - is there an appeal process?

Nope, nothing Paul. GP said she can't do anything either. Madness. :x

 

[Nanu]

John, I feel your frustration and the Law in this case is definitely an ass.

It is all about managing risk. For me common sense should prevail, if your doctor says you are fit to drive then that should be it, end of.

The whole situation you are experiencing surely increases risk. If people are aware of the consequences then it would be tempting not to inform DVLA or not going to the doctor in the first place.

 

[Mr Tidy]

I can understand your frustration John.

I had a TIA in 2006 and couldn't drive for a month and it seemed to last forever so a year must be horrific! Shame there is no appeal process once you are on meds to control the issue.

Slightly off-topic but I don't like the idea of compulsory re-tests after State pension age now it isn't too far away. I'm much safer than I was in my teens/early 20s - I was just lucky.

 

[MikeyH]

I was an absolute idiot in car in my teens with no concept of how dangerous I was. Not good. With age I have mellowed and calmed down and have a sense of awareness and pay more attention to other drivers now than I ever did as teen.

 

[Scubaregs]

42 years riding motorcycles, almost the same driving cars. Experience and road sense more than equates for what I've lost by being almost 59.