DVLA asking for views on policy changes

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSSS said:
It defines it in the column right next to the circled one. Yes it should say it in both.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, the column on the right is for Group 2 Bus and lorry drivers, sorry, my previous screenshot cut off the titles at the top. It would seem sensible that the wording on the right should be how 'appropirate monitoring' is defined, but it doesn’t actually say that for the left hand column .
IMG_1844.png
 
Last edited:
HSSS said:
(I’m not confused, nor a newbie to diabetes or forums, just not actually joined this one til recently)
Click to expand...
I know you’re not confused, nor am I, all I’m saying is that the wording is not clear enough and should be revised to make it plain for people who are confused (and I include doctors amongst those).
I was addressing the thread generally, not you personally, I know that it isn’t exactly a 'Policy change' which is what this thread is asking for comments on, but while they're revising it, they might at least try and make it clearer.
 
Robin said:
No it doesn’t, the column on the right is for Group 2 Bus and lorry drivers, sorry, my previous screenshot cut off the titles at the top. It would seem sensible that the wording on the right should be how 'appropirate monitoring' is defined, but it doesn’t actually say that for the left hand column .
View attachment 27548
Click to expand...
Yes I’m aware that’s the requirements for group 2 but it does define

“…and at times relevant to driving, ie no more than 2 hours before the start of the first journey and every 2 hours while driving”

so as you say it’s reasonable to use that definition - used in the same document in the same context - until they actually put it more clearly in the group 1 section. Legislation will often not define a term at every use of it. Usually it would be defined at the start and before subsequent usages though not within them.
 
HSSS said:
Not everyone new to medication will have a clue that what they are feeling is a hypo, or even that glic can cause them (they should be but let’s be real)
Click to expand...
If they haven’t read the medication leaflet and haven’t made themselves aware of signs of hypos they shouldn’t be driving. If they then had a hypo that caused an accident I’d be in agreement with them losing their licence.

Any adult capable of driving a car should be capable of recognising whether they feel safe to drive or not, whether it be related to medication side effects, hypos, temporary ear infection causing dizziness, whatever.
 
Lucyr said:
If they haven’t read the medication leaflet and haven’t made themselves aware of signs of hypos they shouldn’t be driving. If they then had a hypo that caused an accident I’d be in agreement with them losing their licence.

Any adult capable of driving a car should be capable of recognising whether they feel safe to drive or not, whether it be related to medication side effects, hypos, temporary ear infection causing dizziness, whatever.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world you’re right, on these points. Sadly it’s not true - that’s why we have rules and laws
 
I was discussing this with my partner and he pointed out that he does not have to have his optician complete a form every 3 years to say he can clearly read the number plate of the car in front. Until we reach 70 years old, it is expected that people will inform the dvla if their eyesight gets deteriorates. For driving a car, eyesight is tested at our driving test but not again. Why does the same not apply to hypo awareness?
I remember getting a lift from some one who even when wearing glasses could only drive to places she knew because she could not read road signs. She was driving illegally (and I never accepted a lift from her again) but did not inform the DVLA or have a restricted license.
 
You can inform the DVLA about people who shouldn’t be driving @helli I’ve done it before. It’s anonymous. I’ve also told the police about an elderly driver who almost ran me down on a zebra crossing and even though he’d made contact with me, was totally oblivious.

I too don’t think it’s fair that other people can just carry on driving or self-certify when they’re clearly unfit.
 
Well in that case, it's extremely helpful to other road users for the old blokes 70+ to decide to retain their C1 - since it means they HAVE to have a medical every 3 years - AND their eyesight also checked. But of course if they don't bother cos they only ever drive cars anyway they do self certify for the whole lot. My personal old bloke did decide to do that very thing, but wears specs anyway hence gets his eyes tested including his peripheral vision foc but always spends money in there anyway for new glasses even though his scrip has hardly changed, but needs to book another medical soonish since he'll be 76 in January. New scrip and specs a couple of months ago. No way pedro would either of us NOT invest in new specs whenever we need em cos we both know your eyesight doesn't get better as you age. But there again - affording them isn't a prob for us whereas younger daughter (mother of 4, grandma of 1 so hardly young) is on benefits and has quite often needed a sub for hers. And she HATES needing to ask and doesn't matter however many times we tell her we really don't mind (you know - it's for summat essential and we CAN afford it - she's always convinced we really do mind and works herself up into a state of anxiety and makes herself ill. Deep sigh.)
 
Josh DUK said:
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?
Click to expand...

  • Hello,
    I get checked over once a year with appointments for DSNs, endows, eye scans, & opticians.

    Josh DUK said:
    [*]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?
    Click to expand...

    The above appointments is curtesy of the NHS. Even the optician eye sight test fee is exempt due to my diabetes. I just flash my prescription charge exemption card. (Though i would incur any charge for corrective lenses & or frames.)

    Josh DUK said:
    [*]What would you change about the way that DVLA issues driving licences for people with diabetes?
    Click to expand...

Nothing. The DIAB1 form is a personal declaration of fitness for the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. I also allow DVLA to contact my relevant team to release information testifying my personal fitness to drive. (Backing up my claim on the form.) It’s a pretty straightforward 36 monthly routine.

The system isn’t broke for me. I get a fast turnaround with a new licence too.
 
Josh DUK said:
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
Click to expand...
My answers to the questions would be as follows:
  • Yes, I do believe that the current maximum period for driving while on insulin should be extended from three years to minimum of five years. Longer would be preferable.
  • I think it is ridiculous to suggest that people should be forced to pay for tests that are an additional mandatory requirement to complete due to medical reasons. So my view on paying for test or assessments is that this should not be a requirement to qualify for a drivers licence. The proposal is a penalty imposed on people with medical condition beyond their control to change.
  • The current process is fine.
 
Last edited:
Josh DUK said:
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
Click to expand...
Every 5 years , I think would be OK. I have had my licence revoked due to being honest about having hypos. I am so frustrated because I don't know when or if I will be able to drive again. I know people don't check their bs before driving and this could lead to a serious accident. I don't see why we should pay for any assessments. In my situation I think a letter from your gp or consultant saying that you check your bs regularly and are sensible in your actions should be given a licence to drive.
 
angeladalton said:
Every 5 years , I think would be OK. I have had my licence revoked due to being honest about having hypos. I am so frustrated because I don't know when or if I will be able to drive again. I know people don't check their bs before driving and this could lead to a serious accident. I don't see why we should pay for any assessments. In my situation I think a letter from your gp or consultant saying that you check your bs regularly and are sensible in your actions should be given a licence to drive.
Click to expand...
You lost your licence for the hypos, not for the honesty. Of course you could have lied but that would be both morally and legally wrong. I’m sure people do lie, much the same as people fail to test or do a dozen other dangerous or reckless things in relation to driving. I’m sure it’s a massive inconvenience and probably incurs more costs too but you’ve done the right thing. It would be awful to have the accident and regret lying/failing to test/doing the wrong thing.

How can a dr swear to dvla that you test at the right times for driving/take the right actions though unless they are with you all the time. The best they can do is see what your meter/cgm says but they have no idea how that corresponds to your driving, only to whether you have hypos, good or poor control etc
 
@angeladalton - was this recently? and in what circumstances were you having assisted hypos?

Ooops, sorry - just caught up with your other thread.
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
You aren’t allowed to drive and only use CGM alarms to alert you to hypos. You have to be able to recognise them yourself.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the cgm alarms has been completely missed and misunderstood by the DVLA and some diabetic drivers alike.

There is no need to rely of the cgm for hypo alerts, the range can be set to go off before hypo figures (below 4) are reached. A base alert value of 5.5 (which is what mine is set to) is sufficient to avoid a hypo in most (not all) circumstances.
 
I think as Diabetics, we are often treated as lepers by Officials. I am absolutely fed up of hearing how it is my fault that I am a Type 2. Wrong diet, overweight, not enough exercise etc etc. None of which applies in my case.
So I do see this as another way to bash sufferers. Yes of course safety on the roads is paramount, but what % of accidents can be actually attributed to Diabetics? This being compared with speeding, drinking and drug taking. If the Authorities spent more time, money and effort dealing with the real problems, road accidents would be drastically reduced.
I think the time could be extended to 5 years. I think the forms should be completely re done. I feel every time I fill one in that I am going to have my licence taken off me. The questions seem ambiguous to me. We don't need the additional stress. More support must be given and stop bashing us, who have a horrible condition that we didn't ask for and didn't cause ourselves.
 
Jojo catwoman said:
This being compared with speeding, drinking and drug taking.
Click to expand...
There are rules for all of these things too though, and consequences if they are broken. And they do (try) and deal with these too. And often get slated for not catching rapists and murders when they do so in the case of speeding, so they can’t win sometimes.

I’ve no idea how many accidents are attributable to diabetes but without any rules or checks around I’m sure it would be higher. Totally agree that all such medical forms and guidance should have much clearer and plainer language that cannot be taken ambiguously.

Humans are the cause of most accidents. Poor split second decisions, driving distracted, unwell for any reason, over confidence, arrogance, poor eyesight, poor road skills, poor reaction times etc all combined with a refusal to accept we suffer from any of these things and reluctance to admit them in case they lose their licence no matter what the potential cost to themselves or others. We can try but we’ll never eliminate all risks because of this.
 
HSSS said:
There are rules for all of these things too though, and consequences if they are broken. And they do (try) and deal with these too. And often get slated for not catching rapists and murders when they do so in the case of speeding, so they can’t win sometimes.

I’ve no idea how many accidents are attributable to diabetes but without any rules or checks around I’m sure it would be higher. Totally agree that all such medical forms and guidance should have much clearer and plainer language that cannot be taken ambiguously.

Humans are the cause of most accidents. Poor split second decisions, driving distracted, unwell for any reason, over confidence, arrogance, poor eyesight, poor road skills, poor reaction times etc all combined with a refusal to accept we suffer from any of these things and reluctance to admit them in case they lose their licence no matter what the potential cost to themselves or others. We can try but we’ll never eliminate all risks because of this.
Click to expand...
This is true, plus many drivers not taxed or insured. But many seem to get away with this.
 
Ironically, I don’t think there is a lot to stop me getting on a pushbike, if I lost my privilege to drive?
Now that is a potential hypo maker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top