Charges dropped against hypo driver.

[Sussexmax]

Why should all drivers on insulin be reduced to a 3 year licence @Sussexmax ? There’s absolutely no evidence that’s needed. In fact, there was a thread here recently (from DUK, I think) asking about changes to licences and the majority thought the licence for those on insulin should be extended to 5 years.

That’s very true. I was more agreeing with the Australian example, and specifically the requirement for everyone with diabetes to report their condition, and those on oral medication to be given 5 year licences. Perhaps all of us on medication (insulin or tablet) should have a 5 year restricted licence?

 

[CliffH]

Why should all drivers on insulin be reduced to a 3 year licence @Sussexmax ? There’s absolutely no evidence that’s needed. In fact, there was a thread here recently (from DUK, I think) asking about changes to licences and the majority thought the licence for those on insulin should be extended to 5 years.

As a keen cyclist (and Late Onset Type 1), when I'm on my bike I feel far more at risk from speeding drivers than drivers with diabetes. If we're going to have time-limited driving licences, let's also have them for people who've been convicted of speeding.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

A hypo driver in Australia was acquitted after due legal process. Is there any evidence to suggest that, notwithstanding the existing stronger Australian driving regulations, that horrible accident with five fatalities might still have been prevented with further constraints on insulin dependent drivers? Other than banning
from driving anyone taking insulin (or indeed any medications - how far should we take this?).

I think we are in danger of seriously over-reacting. Driving any vehicle or riding any form of bike has risks. As does crossing the road as a pedestrian (or climbing a ladder). It is not possible to legislate for every risk. If there is an outbreak of something dangerous causing lots of injuries or fatalities, then such a circumstance should be analysed and acted upon where appropriate. Meanwhile, at times I feel I'm constantly threatened by oppressive legislation that is unnecessarily disproportionate (eg car parking not 100% inside a poorly marked box) while serious crime both in public places and from the Internet flourishes.

There is a need to keep a sense of proportion and balance about the priorities for any extra legislation. Knee jerk responses may help Politicians justify their salaries, but doesn't help fend off the steady growth in "clever crime" that nowadays affects so many people, particularly the vulnerable.

 

[CliffH]

A hypo driver in Australia was acquitted after due legal process. Is there any evidence to suggest that, notwithstanding the existing stronger Australian driving regulations, that horrible accident with five fatalities might still have been prevented with further constraints on insulin dependent drivers? Other than banning
from driving anyone taking insulin (or indeed any medications - how far should we take this?).

I think we are in danger of seriously over-reacting. Driving any vehicle or riding any form of bike has risks. As does crossing the road as a pedestrian (or climbing a ladder). It is not possible to legislate for every risk. If there is an outbreak of something dangerous causing lots of injuries or fatalities, then such a circumstance should be analysed and acted upon where appropriate. Meanwhile, at times I feel I'm constantly threatened by oppressive legislation that is unnecessarily disproportionate (eg car parking not 100% inside a poorly marked box) while serious crime both in public places and from the Internet flourishes.

There is a need to keep a sense of proportion and balance about the priorities for any extra legislation. Knee jerk responses may help Politicians justify their salaries, but doesn't help fend off the steady growth in "clever crime" that nowadays affects so many people, particularly the vulnerable.

I agree: the number of people killed or injured by drivers having hypos is vanishingly small compared with the number of drivers who kill or injure people because they're texting and/or speeding and/or drunk and/or under the influence of drugs other than insulin. Cyclists and pedestrians aren't the problem (we don't crash into people at speed with a ton of metal around us): dangerous drivers are.

I'd like to see much more use made of short driving bans, to really inconvenience dangerous drivers and make them think twice next time: during their ban, they can take the train to work and let their kids walk or cycle to school.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

I agree: the number of people killed or injured by drivers having hypos is vanishingly small compared with the number of drivers who kill or injure people because they're texting and/or speeding and/or drunk and/or under the influence of drugs other than insulin. Cyclists and pedestrians aren't the problem (we don't crash into people at speed with a ton of metal around us): dangerous drivers are.

I'd like to see much more use made of short driving bans, to really inconvenience dangerous drivers and make them think twice next time: during their ban, they can take the train to work and let their kids walk or cycle to school.

View attachment 31807

Thanks, @CliffH,
I'd be happy to see that taken a stage further - immediate impounding of the vehicle involved, to add to the inconvenience. For mobile phone users, immediate seizure of that phone (regardless of who technically owns it) and on formal conviction an order banning the individual from the use of any smart phone. Let the user argue their case for the inconvenience etc of a total phone ban (and let the Courts deal with these cases when their workload allows; unlucky if that takes years rather than months). I know that a mobile phone ban is nigh on unenforceable, but if a 2nd offence occurs then the full weight if the law can be applied accordingly.

None of these solutions are ideal and most won't deter the constant offender. There are a considerable number of motorists who drive without one or all of a licence, MOT or road tax. They, simply, are not deterred by financial consequences. But they do understand inconvenience!

 

[CliffH]

Thanks, @CliffH,
I'd be happy to see that taken a stage further - immediate impounding of the vehicle involved, to add to the inconvenience. For mobile phone users, immediate seizure of that phone (regardless of who technically owns it) and on formal conviction an order banning the individual from the use of any smart phone. Let the user argue their case for the inconvenience etc of a total phone ban (and let the Courts deal with these cases when their workload allows; unlucky if that takes years rather than months). I know that a mobile phone ban is nigh on unenforceable, but if a 2nd offence occurs then the full weight if the law can be applied accordingly.

None of these solutions are ideal and most won't deter the constant offender. There are a considerable number of motorists who drive without one or all of a licence, MOT or road tax. They, simply, are not deterred by financial consequences. But they do understand inconvenience!

... and their kids get sent to the workhouse

 

[Amity Island]

None of these solutions are ideal and most won't deter the constant offender.

For me this is why the law doesn't actually work.

Those of a criminal mindset have absolutely no interest in the law and do as they please.
Those who abide by the law -- due only to their own good moral compass -- don't need the law to behave.

 

[CliffH]

For me this is why the law doesn't actually work.

Those of a criminal mindset have absolutely no interest in the law and do as they please.
Those who abide by the law -- due only to their own good moral compass -- don't need the law to behave.

I think it's more of a continuum: at one end of the scale are people who (for example) never exceed 20mph in a '20' zone and declare all their income every year. At the other end of the scale are (perhaps) gangsters. In between are the rest of us.

 

[Amity Island]

I think it's more of a continuum: at one end of the scale are people who (for example) never exceed 20mph in a '20' zone and declare all their income every year. At the other end of the scale are (perhaps) gangsters. In between are the rest of us.

I agree with that. My point was more about "the law" rather than all the "legalities" which are imposed on us. The law is very simple (see ten commandments as one example), life is very simple, we just make it so complicated.

As @Proud to be erratic suggests, we can't legislate for everything and everyone. We have become completely overburden with legalities and red tape, it's stiffling. Take as an example health and safety, its gone so far now that people expect everything to be safe, which leads people to not be responsible or be aware, they just assume. We can try to make things so safe that we don't keep our own eyes open.

Where has personal responsibilty gone? It's always someone else's fault.

 

[CliffH]

I agree with that. My point was more about "the law" rather than all the "legalities" which are imposed on us. The law is very simple (see ten commandments as one example), life is very simple, we just make it so complicated.

As @Proud to be erratic suggests, we can't legislate for everything and everyone. We have become completely overburden with legalities and red tape, it's stiffling. Take as an example health and safety, its gone so far now that people expect everything to be safe, which leads people to not be responsible or be aware, they just assume. We can try to make things so safe that we don't keep our own eyes open.

Where has personal responsibilty gone? It's always someone else's fault.

I guess "the law" has several different layers and complexities. For example, many of us would subscribe to the spirit behind "Thou shalt not kill" - but how about the old dilemma: "Would you have killed Hitler if you'd been in a position to do so?".

Some other of the Ten Commandments are perhaps more contentious: for example, although I've always found it quite easy to resist the temptation to make "graven images", given that I'm a non-Christian I've spent my whole life 'putting other gods before' the Christian God. As for "Thou shalt not commit adultery" ... .

 

[Amity Island]

I guess "the law" has several different layers and complexities. For example, many of us would subscribe to the spirit behind "Thou shalt not kill" - but how about the old dilemma: "Would you have killed Hitler if you'd been in a position to do so?".

Some other of the Ten Commandments are perhaps more contentious: for example, although I've always found it quite easy to resist the temptation to make "graven images", given that I'm a non-Christian I've spent my whole life 'putting other gods before' the Christian God. As for "Thou shalt not commit adultery" ... .

I've always felt the law is part of being human/intuitive (moral compass), even criminals say they regret much of what they do for their entire lives. Whereas, things of a legal nature are un-natural and impossible to know intuitively. Take for example the 2hr blood glucose check. Intuition would say check before one drives. One can quickly see how we've gone from personal responsibilty to infinite legal requirements.

The way we now live (much of modern world) actually takes away our own power and responsibility. Effectively handing everything over to another.

 

[CliffH]

I've always felt the law is part of being human/intuitive (moral compass), even criminals say they regret much of what they do for their entire lives. Whereas, things of a legal nature are un-natural and impossible to know intuitively. Take for example the 2hr blood glucose check. Intuition would say check before one drives. One can quickly see how we've gone from personal responsibilty to infinite legal requirements.

Well, presumably as social animals most of us are 'hard-wired' to avoid doing things that will harm the 'herd'. I'm sure that some "criminals" do, as you say, "regret much of what they do for their entire lives" - although how much of that is remorse and how much of it is because they've been caught? It's very hard to gauge the psychological state of "criminals" who are never caught.

There's also the issue of people doing things that criminalise them at the time - but who are later regarded as having done society a good turn by having been brave enough to break the law.