Proposed changes to driving licence standards

[shiv]

Hi, not sure if this has been posted or if anyone has seen it.

There have been some proposed changes to change the 'standards' of getting a driving licence if you have insulin dependent diabetes.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/consultations/currentconsultations.aspx

If you click 'Proposals to amend Driving Licence Standards for Vision, Diabetes and Epilepsy Annex III to Directive 91/439/EEC' at the bottom it should bring it up.

Highlights:

"RECURRENT SEVERE HYPOGLYCAEMIA
Definition
3.2 Severe hypoglycaemia means that the assistance of another person is needed. Recurrent hypoglycaemia is defined as a ?second severe hypoglycaemia during a period of 12 months.? On occasion, severe hypoglycaemia can result from medication other than insulin.

Current UK standard
3.3 Drivers who have had frequent hypoglycaemic episodes must cease driving. Licences may be refused or revoked for such applicants if they are considered ?a source of danger to the public?. However, if control has been re-established, a licence can be issued or renewed.New EU Rules

3.4 Drivers experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia shall not be issued a licence. This is more clear cut than previous EU rules, particularly because of the clear definition of recurrent hypoglycaemia as being two episodes in 12 months.

Proposed change to UK standard
3.5 The UK is obliged to adopt this standard. The Panel and DVLA also support the standard, having considered the EU working group report ?Diabetes and Driving in Europe? which indicated that recent severe hypoglycaemia seemed to be predictive for future incidents. Whilst current UK Guidance in ?At a Glance? is capable of implementing this standard, even at present, in practice it has previously been interpreted more flexibly. We are now required to interpret the standard more strictly and in practice, this will prevent some applicants and existing drivers from holding a licence. However, the EU rules also allow a licence to be granted once control or awareness is re-established and we shall continue to do this.

Consideration of the need for change
3.6 The current UK standard will need to be interpreted more strictly. We shall amend guidance and /or regulations to make the new standard clearer"

"IMPAIRED AWARENESS OF HYPOGLYCAEMIA

Definition
3.7 Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia means an inability to detect the onset of hypoglycaemia due to a total absence of warning symptoms.

Current UK standard
3.8 Drivers with impaired awareness are required to cease driving, until awareness has been re-gained.

New EU Rules
3.9 Driving licences shall not be issued to, nor renewed for, applicants or drivers who have impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. In practice, this will prevent some applicants and existing drivers from holding a licence.

Proposed change to UK standard
3.10 The UK must adopt this standard. As for recurrent hypoglycaemia, existing UK guidance must now be interpreted more strictly.

Consideration of the need for change
3.11 We shall amend guidance and /or regulations to make the new standard clearer."

 

[Robster65]

Hi SHiv

Northerner posted a thread in Driving/DVLA about changes, which sound like the same ones you've posted.

http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=15768

It is going to mess up a few people's lives I should think. Especially if medical records are not up to date. It may also discourage patients from being honest with their care teams.

BUT driving is not an automatic right and needs careful consideration.

Rob

 

[shiv]

Ah sorry - I couldn't remember if it had been posted before.

 

[margie]

It's the thought that counts and more people will probably spot it here, The driving forum being so low down the list is not frequented too often.

 

[Robster65]

It can't be told too many times. I suspect there'll be some very upset T1s very soon.

Some will undoubtedly lose their jobs because of it, but it hasn't exactly been splashed across the front pages.

Rob

 

[trophywench]

Stupid Question number 5,027 - ish; who is going to tell them ?

Last year I lobbed my 'then current' Glucagon jab, because I had had it since 2005 (last time I had to use the stuff was Easter Tuesday 2005 so it had been prescribed after that) and it had gone out of date. In January 2011 I actually remembered to ask for a replacement. Last week (typical!!!) due to operator error (some stupid tart made a mistake with a Novorapid jab) I had a severe hypo and hubby had to Do The Deed. Now OK I spose my GP will know because so far this year I have had 2 kits prescribed but that doesn't prove I have used them, does it? If asked I could say I dropped it whilst cleaning out the fridge, couldn't I? But who is going to ask me? The DVLA won't for about another 2 years.

Or is 'severe' only when you haven't got a Hypokit in the fridge and so someone has to dial 999 ?

 

[Copepod]

I'm not a lawyer, but in legal training, have been advised to read words carefully and interpret with common sense.

Section 3.2 defines "severe hypoglycaemia" - key section is "assistance of another person is needed" - to me that means needs, because coudln't deal with hypoglycaemia alone, not just had help from another person
"Recurrent hypoglycaemia is defined as a ?second severe hypoglycaemia during a period of 12 months.? " - pretty clear cut, really.

In 3.5, there is reassurance that licence can be regained once "control or awareness is re-established", under new rules as well as old ones.

There is already an obligation for a driver to inform DVLA if s/he has a medical condition that affects ability to drive, and a fine / points on licence if they fail to do so. I assume DVLA will have a rolling programme of sending out leaflets about changes in regualtions when they send out forms with next licence renewal, which will be within 3 years for everyone on insulin.

Sad that some people will lose licences and jobs, but safety of everyone who uses roads or pavements is paramount. Some may be transferred to other jobs within same company if they can no longer drive. Inability to commute by driving is more problematic, and while walking, cycling and public transport may be options, distances and shift times sometimes preclude alternatives to driving, leaving taxis and car shares.

 

[hotchop]

We, as diabetics, have a duty of care to other road users and if we fail to meet the specific criteria then it is fair that we lose our right to drive.

a heavy lump of metal can hurt and even kill and we should all be responsible and honest about how this disease affects us.

If that means no driving then so be it.

 

[ypauly]

I dont think these changes are warranted or necessary, any offence committed could already, and already have been dealt with by existing laws and legislation. Diabetics that manage the condition are probably SAFER than some others due to such things as regular testing (before every journey) and eye checks.
It also still leaves grey areas such as circumstances beyong your control. You may not be driving or indeed have any intention to drive, but decided to go hill walking for example and get trapped by some freak of nature wether that be the weather or a landslide or some other such thing, by the time help arrives you are hypo and require further assistance.
Your livelyhood is gone, for me it would be disasterous to not be able to drive i couldn't possibly command my current salary with any company nearer to home (my skills are industry specific) without significant re-training and who would pay because I wouldn't be in a position to due to not working. So it would mean moving house (again) away from the good school my daughter is in, away from family and away from freinds.

A wild senario given I accept that, but there are so many situations where assistance may be required for no fault of your own.

 

[AJLang]

Not a wild scenario.....fortunately 10 years ago I moved to a house that was within walking distance just in case I couldn't drive for any reason - I didn't expect that to happen - but having now had two eye operations this year I've made a difficult decision to stop driving, at least for the foreseeable future. If I didn't live close to my employer it would be extremely difficult for me to carry on working.

I was more concerned by the phrase "Drivers who have had frequent hypoglycaemic episodes must cease driving." - what does this mean - does it mean hypos i.e. BGs under 4 or does it mean those requiring assistance?

 

[sofaraway]

I thought that was the standard anyway, 2 hypos in a year needing assistance then you lose the lisense. I had one severe hypo which I was admitted to A&E and when i next went to renew they only gave me a year.

What is interesting is the definition on impaired hypo awareness, it states total absence of symptoms. So people with poor awareness or awareness that doesn't kick in until very low levels, don't seem to be a problem under these guidelines.

 

[Robster65]

I wold imagine there will be an appeal system for extreme cases. But it does seem that the only way to stay driving is to make sure you test before, and during, any journey and make sure you're above 5 at all times.

Strangely, I wouldn't want to be driving if I was in the 20s. Apart from havign to stop every 100 yards for a toilet break, it can interfere with reaction times and cognition just as much as hypos. No mention of that though.

Rob

 

[margie]

Strangely, I wouldn't want to be driving if I was in the 20s. Apart from havign to stop every 100 yards for a toilet break, it can interfere with reaction times and cognition just as much as hypos. No mention of that though.

Rob

If you were doing that and a police patrol came along they would probably breathalyse you because of erratic driving.

Whenever I test and I am between 4 and 5 and I say to my OH I have to have a snack before I can drive - he sighs at me and pulls a face. I have to tune this out and get on with my snack.

 

[redrevis]

From reading the new revised version it says you can actually drive when under 5 as long as you've had a snack to bring your levels up first. Basically so if you test and it's 4.6 you can have a small snack and be on your way instead of having to wait and retest to get a 5+ figure on your meter before driving.

 

[Robster65]

If you were doing that and a police patrol came along they would probably breathalyse you because of erratic driving.

Whenever I test and I am between 4 and 5 and I say to my OH I have to have a snack before I can drive - he sighs at me and pulls a face. I have to tune this out and get on with my snack.

I just go round to the passenger side and let Sarah drive.

Rob

 

[margie]

I didn't actually mean when we were out - I meant testing before leaving the house - I swear he thinks i am making it up half the time.

 

[Robster65]

We've had many a delayed outing due to lows. If I'm struggling to stay above 5 or 6, I usually relinquish the driver's seat too. It's as easy for either of us to drive, so I go with the safest option. But if my BG's ok, then I do try to get behind the wheel.

Rob

 

[Copepod]

Does that mean you have a non-driving partner Margie, like me?

As my partner shows no interest in learning to drive, he can't really complain if I need to delay setting off, although usually testing before loading car gives time for a snack - loading takes a while as we usually travel with a boot full of camping kit, bikes, kayak on roof etc.

 

[Robster65]

Does that mean you have a non-driving partner Margie, like me?

As my partner shows no interest in learning to drive, he can't really complain if I need to delay setting off, although usually testing before loading car gives time for a snack - loading takes a while as we usually travel with a boot full of camping kit, bikes, kayak on roof etc.

Sounds like an adventurous trip to Tesco 😱

Rob

 

[margie]

Does that mean you have a non-driving partner Margie, like me?

He can drive - but my car is better than his so he wants to go places in it but he doesn't like the feel of it when driving. He also doesn't like to drive at twilight. Christmas and Easter I have to drive as his Dad will give him copious amounts to drink whilst I stick with a cup of tea or diet lemonade.