DVLA asking for views on policy changes

[Josh DUK]

The DVLA have put out a Call for Evidence asking for views and experiences to identify areas where policy or legislative changes may be able to improve the way they deal with licensing for people with medical conditions that affect driving. Could anyone share their answers in the thread listed below:

• Do you think the current maximum period for a restricted driving licence if you have insulin treated diabetes should be extended to five or more years?
• What are your views on paying for tests or assessments that you have to undergo as part of renewing or applying for your driving licence?
• What would you change about the way that DVLA issues driving licences for people with diabetes?

Please share your thoughts in this thread if you can.

Josh DUK

 

[RichardsUsername]

I recently got turned down for a free bus pass as the meds I take would not be a problem to the DVLA and me holding a driving license. Even though the meds I take have a sedative affect. Which means falling asleep at the wheel. Apparently they consulted a medical expert. Not the first time though. I requested hospital transport and was told it's for the disabled. When I confirmed I have a disability the member of staff said yeah but you answered potentially to getting into a taxi.

Probably not what you were asking for entirely but thought it was worth sharing.

 

[berryr99]

The DVLA have put out a Call for Evidence asking for views and experiences to identify areas where policy or legislative changes may be able to improve the way they deal with licensing for people with medical conditions that affect driving. Could anyone share their answers in thread listed below:

• Do you think the current maximum period for a restricted driving licence if you have insulin treated diabetes should be extended to five or more years?
• What are your views on paying for tests or assessments that you have to undergo as part of renewing or applying for your driving licence?
• What would you change about the way that DVLA issues driving licences for people with diabetes?

Please share your thoughts in this thread if you can.

Josh DUK

Maximum period - increase to 5 years (there is an onus on drivers to report medical conditions anyway)
Paying for test/assessments - not a problem for me but may be an issue to others
DVLA - I find the medical forms somewhat confusing some simplification and a better layout would be helpful. No issues with the way DVLA issues licences though.

 

[Inka]

1) Maximum period 5 years or more, eg 7 or 8 years if no previous problems
2) No we shouldn’t have to pay for tests or assessments. That’s a tax on the disabled/ill. I couldn’t afford to pay for anything like that anyway.
3) I agree with @berryr99 that the Diab form could be improved. I’ve filled it in a number of times but still I get paranoid about doing it wrong. It also doesn’t define hypoglycaemia properly, and the questions about hypos are vague and open to interpretation, eg the one about how many you’ve had.

 

[helli]

Would definitely like to see an extension to the duration of the license and less ambiguous form.
I agree with @Inka : paying for a test would be disability discrimination. Time off work for another test would be costly enough for many.

 

[TwilightMidna]

paying for a test would be disability discrimination.

This was my immediate thought as well. Agree with everything else already posted too!

 

[freesia]

I'm agreeing with everything above.

 

[Dragonheart]

I’d like to see greater clarity about the need for testing and acceptable levels for users of non insulin hypoglycaemic medications, eg gliclizide. There’s much confusion on these forums (and others).

The advice in drs guidance (fundamentally to test and treat as insulin for driving rules) is not making it into patient/drivers leaflets etc and is hard to find buried several links deep from ng28. This is different to the need to advise (or not) dvla of their condition or hypos.

 

[trophywench]

I'm also annoyed about their obsession removing the C1 entitlement from as many different categories of drivers they fancy, as well as wanting the 3 yrs lengthened to at least 5 too please.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

Seems lazy on my part but fully agree with all previously said:
-Increased duration
-fees = disability tax
-diab form badly needs improving; remove ambiguities.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I’m going against the flow slightly here, but I would prefer them to keep the 3 year renewal. A lot can happen in 5 years, and even more in 7 or 8 (change of insulins… change of tech… exposure to low-level hypos altering warning-sign clarity…). And while I know the onus is on drivers to notify the DVLA or any changes, I think the number of people who need to drive for work, and face significant difficulties if their license was removed, can make it difficult for people to volunteer information which they fear may be misinterpreted (or even accurately interpreted!). A more regular review means that the fitness to drive has to be assessed / confirmed by a qualified person who is engaged with their care.

Absolutely agree that we should not have to pay for tests.

And a double-yes about the forms needing to be clarified. We’ve had forum members getting licenses revoked because of the poor wording of the form. Like the person who never ever had hypoglycaemia, so replied that ’no’ he didn’t get warning signs 😱

Plus It would be a great help to get clarification about which T2 meds ‘count’ and mean that a person needs to notify the DVLA. Different sources/leaflets/notes for Drs seem to suggest different things, and it’s a question that comes up on the forum a lot.

 

[trophywench]

Ah now - that IS a point. After my optician said I'd got the start of cataracts I thought I ought to say so on my licence renewal - Pete said he didn't think so but pfft what could he know that I didn't .....

Immediately rescinded my licence.

OMG the trouble I had getting it reinstated, because DVLA swore to me on numerous occasions they'd faxed what they needed to my nearest Driving Licence Examination Centre - but they never received it. In the finish both I and the Chief Examiner there got so fed up of them he had me go and sit in their waiting room while he rang them and said 'Send it NOW!' and stood by the ruddy fax machine until they did. All it flipping was , was my ability to read a rear number plate at required distance absolutely MUST be checked ONLY by a licensed examiner. A properly qualified opthalmologist's word for it was ABSOLUTELY not acceptable to them. So bloke then then re appeared, beaming, with old fashioned 'wind up' tape measure in his hand (like we saw used in school sports in the 1950s and 60s!) and we went outside together.

Trouble was, dear friends - this was a Friday when my husband was at work 20+ miles away - and it's not on a bus route - so the only possible way I could have got there from our house was ....... and guess which car he asked me to read the number of - so I deliberately told him I'd prefer him to enquire about any other vehicle on the carpark, but obviously told him mine but said 'Please, please, don't look and see who that's registered to! - let's just try and stop this agony, on my own head be it' and pointed out I was facing him and looking him in the eye as I did so, to which he shrugged, I sighed - then looked forwards again and told him clearly also those of several other cars further way than mine. Any more you'd like? It got renewed NP after that. This was nearly 20 years ago now.

 

[nonethewiser]

5 years is fair, no fees & definitely form could be easier & more clearer when filling in.

 

[Lucyr]

Plus It would be a great help to get clarification about which T2 meds ‘count’ and mean that a person needs to notify the DVLA.

I do think the DVLA are already clear on this though, people just don’t read the website / the form. For a car licence only those on insulin need to notify, unless they’ve had certain complications like severe hypos or severe sight problems.

 

[Dragonheart]

I do think the DVLA are already clear on this though, people just don’t read the website / the form. For a car licence only those on insulin need to notify, unless they’ve had certain complications like severe hypos or severe sight problems.

Although the need to NOTIFY dvla that you are on these medications is clear enough, it’s the requirement to TEST blood glucose levels whilst driving for the avoidance of hypos that is especially unclear - two different issues.

The guidance on testing with non insulin hypoglycaemic medications ranges from zero mention to clear necessity with vague statements in between depending on the document.

We’ve discussed this before. I have pulled apart the website, forms and other sources trying to seek clarity on this issue of testing. And I am experienced in reading source (legal) documents not just leaflet summaries which are subject to interpretation and oversimplification of the actual law/rules.

 

[Lucyr]

Although the need to NOTIFY dvla that you are on these medications is clear enough, it’s the requirement to TEST blood glucose levels whilst driving for the avoidance of hypos that is especially unclear - two different issues.

The guidance on testing with non insulin hypoglycaemic medications ranges from zero mention to clear necessity with vague statements in between depending on the document.

We’ve discussed this before. I have pulled apart the website, forms and other sources trying to seek clarity on this issue of testing. And I am experienced in reading source (legal) documents not just leaflet summaries which are subject to interpretation and oversimplification of the actual law/rules.

There’s no requirement to test if not on insulin, you just need to be able to recognise and treat a hypo if one happens, so many people like to have a meter just in case. They don’t sign anything saying they will test though.

 

[Dragonheart]

There’s no requirement to test if not on insulin, you just need to be able to recognise and treat a hypo if one happens, so many people like to have a meter just in case. They don’t sign anything saying they will test though.

Did you sign anything to say you won’t speed, or drive drunk or break any other law?

And you seem to be relying on the leaflet INF 188/2 talking about requirement to notify DVLA for your claim and disregarding several other sources that say otherwise for a need to test. Good luck relying on that if arrested for driving unfit whilst under the influence of drugs S4 RTA 1988 after a hypo driving incident, hopefully without injuries or deaths.

The whole point in this thread is that the advice isn’t consistent from one document/source to another and this review is the perfect opportunity to make it clearer just what the requirement/expectation is. Every time a summary of the law is written the author puts their own spin on it and choices their own words. This can lead to distortion, oversimplification and different interpretations. The fact that this debate arises often on various forums demonstrates a need for more clarity.

To save derailing this thread with another debate with you on this subject I suggest anyone interested in the details of this issue take a look at the evidence I gave you back in June here https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/board...els-practical-help.106752/page-2#post-1270272 beginning on post 37 through to post 45. Theres more sources online too.

Ultimately almost all sources agree the driver is legally responsible for being in safe control of the car. If you are hypo you are not safe. How else can a person on hypoglycaemic medication be sure they are not hypo other than by testing? Especially if they have any symptoms whatsoever, have lost hypo awareness or are new to the medication? Drs should be advising patients and providing the means to test, but sometimes don’t, possibly due to the costs associated with testing, possibly for other reasons maybe even because of the same confusion we find on the topic

 

[Lucyr]

If you are hypo you are not safe. How else can a person on hypoglycaemic medication be sure they are not hypo other than by testing? Especially if they have any symptoms whatsoever, have lost hypo awareness or are new to the medication?

If they have hypos without awareness they would of course have reported that and lost their licence. Having hypo awareness means anyone on tablets who is driving will know whether they feel safe to drive, if they feel hypo they wouldn’t drive as it’s everyone’s responsibility to be safe to drive. No one that drives should be having hypos that they don’t know about.

 

[SB2015]

I would be happy with 5 years
Definitely should not be charged for tests
The form certainly needs reviewing and making less confusing.

 

[Dragonheart]

If they have hypos without awareness they would of course have reported that and lost their licence. Having hypo awareness means anyone on tablets who is driving will know whether they feel safe to drive, if they feel hypo they wouldn’t drive as it’s everyone’s responsibility to be safe to drive. No one that drives should be having hypos that they don’t know about.

People new to medication don’t always recognise hypos as such. People don’t always make appropriate or safe choices when feeling unwell. People don’t always realise the risks they are running if not properly educated about their medication. People are not always responsible. That is why there are laws, to make people consider their choices and hold them accountable for bad ones.

And regardless of what you or I believe morally, my posts here are about the lack of clarity legally. Whatever DVLA decide should be legally the situation they need to make the advice consistent and clearer across all sources.

Are you pushing back because you intrinsically (and naively) trust everyone to do the right thing? because you’re on such medication and don’t want to test to drive?