Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Jul 20, 2019 21:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 04:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
here
Daily Mail - Jenny Hope wrote:
Million drivers face losing licence under EU diabetes diktat
By Jenny Hope Last updated at 8:43 AM on 22nd August 2011

Up to one million people with diabetes could lose their driving licences because of harsh new European rules classifying them as unfit to drive.

Experts claim the ‘unnecessarily strict’ changes will affect hundreds of thousands who have been driving for decades without problems.

They say the rules amount to a blanket ban on diabetics taking insulin who occasionally have ‘hypos’ – episodes of hypoglycaemia, or low blood sugar, which may cause blackouts if not countered with a sugary snack.
Victim of Brussels: There are fears that diabetes sufferers will be unfairly penalised by the new legislation

Under a new definition of the rules to meet an EU directive, a diabetic who has two hypos in a year – even while in bed – will end up banned from driving.

The charity Diabetes UK has protested to the Department for Transport about the changes, due to take effect in October.
It has told officials that up to a million people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who use insulin could be ‘negatively affected’ by the changes, but says there is no evidence that drivers with diabetes pose a greater risk than others.

The charity fears the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) is applying the EU directive far more strictly than other countries.

In fact some diabetics have found the DVLA is already using the new interpretation to ban them from the roads. Simon O’Neill, of Diabetes UK, said the new DVLA definitions of ‘severe’ and ‘recurrent’ hypoglycaemia threatened a blanket ban for many.

Up until now, severe hypos were defined as episodes where another person was needed to administer carbohydrate or take other actions during waking hours to assist the diabetic.
The new definition used by the DVLA also includes hypoglycaemia when the individual is asleep.

Mr O’Neill said the EC Directive itself does not specify nocturnal hypoglycaemia, yet the DVLA has chosen to include it in assessing fitness to drive.
He added: ‘We believe nocturnal hypoglycaemia has no medical basis of relevance to driving.’

Professor Geoff Gill, professor of diabetes at Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, said a tighter definition of hypoglycaemia was unnecessary as the current system required drivers to report when they had an episode they could not manage alone.
He said: ‘We’re not looking for a softer option, we don’t want people driving who are a danger. This is about an interpretation of the rules that will unfairly impact on the lives of many diabetics.
‘It could mean that people with diabetes who have been driving safely for years will lose the right to drive under these changes.
‘They won’t only be people who use the car to drive to the shops or a football match, but those who depend on driving for their livelihoods.’

A DVLA spokesman said: ‘We aim to strike the right balance – making sure that only those who are safe to drive are allowed on our roads, while at the same time avoiding placing unnecessary restrictions on people’s independence.
‘We must apply European medical standards but we consider every case individually and refuse licences only where absolutely necessary.’
When trust is removed from society who can anyone 'trust' to ensure new rules are applied appropriately.
At face value this seem highly prejudicial, and a questionable 'reason' to ban a whole percentage of motorists that have a 'right' to be able to travel and only ever removed when there is a clear case to remove it. To be able to travel allows a person to play a full and proper part in society. To be able to travel is never a 'privilege but a human right that no one that is 'granted by authorities'.


Attachments:
article-0-0D7F6B0400000578-108_468x241_popup.jpg
article-0-0D7F6B0400000578-108_468x241_popup.jpg [ 194.62 KiB | Viewed 7729 times ]

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 07:56 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
How many accidents are found to be due to diabetics going into a coma while driving? Surely, this is the only fact upon which a ban might be considered.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 08:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
And still my big issue is swept under the carpet of no compulsory eye test. :x

Nice to know they have their priorities right - not! The EU nutters are running the asylum.

malcolmw wrote:
How many accidents are found to be due to diabetics going into a coma while driving? Surely, this is the only fact upon which a ban might be considered.

When have the facts ever got in the way of legislation? :wink:

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
The only thing I hate worse than the EU is our conniving, self-interested political elite who sold us down the river to them. How we have a state of affairs today where we take orders from Brussels is beyond me. It actually makes me angry and that is a rarity.

It won't stop at the Diabetics. Eventually everything and veryone will be legislated for. Scary stuff.

Enjoy what comparatively little freedom you have left for it goes by the hour. :headbash:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I think it prejudicial in the extreme and another excuse to remove people from driving / riding - utter stupidity !

Along with this one though, that has not much media attention that I know of, of late is also sleep apnea - yet when the cause can be obesity and surely highly unlikely to effect anyone seriously when motoring at all ! In that when someone starts to feel slightly ill - they stop take appropriately available solutions (choc bar / injection etc) and carry on to the services or carry on the journey.
Even watching the A&E type progs, they gave a cyclist a few minutes to 'recover' and then he cycled off. There has already been a lot of discussion on these boards about it and has thrown up many interesting thoughts and considerations. There was a lady with SA (not obesity related) and she was not allowed to drive for the genuine danger that she might fall asleep. There are gadgets now aren't there that tell people if they are getting drowsy, so I wonder if this may help those who only have the occasional problem and can they be 'stirred' out of the sleep state easily/immediately?

It is a 'must fear' everything culture, throwing everything up as an issue, and as a result, people will fear going to the doctor to report problems for fear of loosing their licences. Then real problems will become worse, the NHS will then deal with a bigger problems (later) and real health issues will end up causing accidents.
Further laws will then be imposed forcing people to the doctor for a heath exam before they are considered 'suitable' to drive, making driving (as the likes of Brake already say) a privileged not a 'right' ! Since when was travel not a 'right'.
THAT needs fighting and fighting very very hard indeed!

Has the NHS got anything like to resources to enable this ? Hardly. I can get a blood test back for my animals within a few hours, for me it takes many days if not a week or two!
Plus how long before many disguise or refuse to state conditions to the people who might help to sure the various probs.
How long before more people buy their on test kits and 'manage' it all themselves. Or perhaps that is right ... perhaps making a Nation more stoic and self-solving, would be better? :scratchchin:
Does everything need to be 'reported, treated'? some people now do 'manage' diabetes just from the right intake of food.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 13:01 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Has the NHS got anything like the resources to enable this ?
Absolutely not! It hasn't the resources to do what it's always done Claire. Seriously, I see if for myself and that scares the crap out of me. :(

I don't mean this as a joke but be affaid, be very affraid. That which we call the NHS by any other name still smells like privatisation and extreme cuts backs.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 13:11 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
You raise some interesting points.

The EU will not stop until they have absolute control over every facet of our lives. They deny the right and ability of the individual to apply common sense and reason to their actions. So that of diabetics, if they feel themselves becoming unwell, to stop and address the issue. Which they have done up until now quite satisfactorily. I have never heard of a diebetic causing a serious accident.

They don't seem to consider the impact such legislation and that which follows it will have. They have their agenda, that much is clear. Yes, I do think it will make people less likely to seek help. We are a nation of drivers and we rely on our cars to a great extent. Sometimes a bit too much, granted (I have seen people literally drive 100 yartds to the shops and back again). However if faced with losing their licence or seeing medical help, I think a lot of people will forgo the latter. Which would obviously be a mistake. Yet the EU rarely consider the long-term consequences. I mean, these are people who legislate common sense yet if they had any between them they would realise such things are not necessary.

Undoubtedly a stoic, self-reliant society like the war generations is something that cannot be said of us today, but I do not think it should come about by the possibly lethal practice of self-diagnosis and self-medicating. That is far more likely to produce a nation of hypocondriacs, misdiagnosis, drug reactions or even death. We have health care professionals in this country for a reason and we should not be forced into a situation where we are unable to seek help due to fear of losing our licences. The EU must be stopped.

Some diabetes can be controled with diet. Depends on the type.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 18:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Maybe this is one of the reasons Camerloon is backtracking on a possible eu referendum. I guess this would be another million votes for the "Get Out Now" camp!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 20:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Big Tone wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Has the NHS got anything like the resources to enable this ?
Absolutely not! It hasn't the resources to do what it's always done Claire. Seriously, I see if for myself .....
it was a rhetorical question really as I know they haven't got enough - ever ! :) ... sadly. But if you can find me a rhetorical smiley that would be brilliant - since you usually manage to find some excellent one's !
DoktorMandrake wrote:
The EU will not stop until they have absolute control over every facet of our lives.
I think that may not be the case, I think they do, and they realise full well that there will be 'the reaction', and then they settle on a 'less degree' action, which is what they wanted in the first place. So they start by deliberately going 'overboard' to ensure 'most' will agree to an apparent lesser evil!
I forget the tactical name for this but it is well known ...
I hope the whole thing gets thrown out under 'human rights' issues, and I hope that they have to swallow their pride and backtrack, but who is around to fight this massive task ? Hopefully the diabetic societies will ...
Does this appalling attitude not possibly encourage some to consider those who suffer all the various diabetic conditions to be considered a 'lower class citizen ? ... because they are being deprived of a basic right to travel, and so work they will be restricted to thus affecting their lifestyle and earning potential and so on ... so a lesser lifestyle ability is a possible outcome ! :shock:
DoktorMandrake wrote:
Some diabetes can be controlled with diet. Depends on the type.
Yep - Type II. here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/24/low-calorie-diet-hope-cure-diabetes
British Dietetic Association, here : http://www.bda.uk.com/

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 20:40 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 21:15
Posts: 699
Location: Belfast
:gatso2: Back in the 90's,the EU made similar threats to ban all deaf and hard of hearing drivers from driving. Here in N. Ireland, a few of them got together and joined RoADA and the IAM with the object of taking and passing as many advanced driving tests as possible, just to stick two fingers up to the EU. My mother, who's deaf passed the IAM test, became a qualified RoADA assessor and achieved a Gold grade in 2006.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 21:07 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
The most ludicrous thing about this is that you don't have to be diabetic and taking insulin to have low blood sugar. And a Diabetic not taking insulin is extremely unlikely to have low blood sugar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 05:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
An email copy of this has been sent to me ...
BRANDON LEWIS MP wrote:
Brandon Lewis MP
Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth
Brandon Lewis MP
Constituency Office
Fastolff House
30 Regent Street
Great Yarmouth
NR30 1RR
22nd August, 2011
Dear **********,
Thank you for your email regarding the possible changes to driving with diabetes. I understand the
concerns you have raised. However, I wish to stress that these measures are only being
considered for the safety of all road users.
The implementation of this directive has only recently been brought forward by Mike Penning MP.
The biggest charity working with UK diabetics, Diabetes UK, have been in consultation with the
DVLA over the following:
• Drivers experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia shall not be issued a licence -'severe
recurrent hypoglycaemia' is now defined as `a second severe hypoglycaemia during a period
of 12 months'
• Any Severe Hypoglycaemic event, even when not driving, must be reported and will now
lead to driver reassessment.
• Drivers with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia will not be issued licences, nor be able to
renew. Impaired awareness is now defined as a total absence ®f warning symptoms.
• Group 1 Drivers with tablet treated diabetes will not be required to inform the DVLA unless
they develop visual complications or hypoglycaemia. This is on the basis that they are under
regular medical review - based on NHS prescribing reviews taking place every 12 months.
• Drivers treated by insulin will now be able to apply for Group 2 licences based on the 5 point
criteria and an annual review undertaken by an expert diabetologist.
This consultation has now closed, but I am aware that Diabetes UK have raised their concerns
regarding the changes. This will help to ensure that those who are fit to drive, will be able to do so.
The report from the consultation with the DVLA is likely to be published in September 2011. I will
be continuing to monitor this issue in the coming months.
Yours sincerely,
BRANDON LEWIS MP
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR GREAT YARMOUTH
Email: office@brandonlewis.org

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
The link below gives ROSPA's views on the topic. Also - it lists all the other issues within this directive. ROSPA agrees with the proposal regarding complications with Type 1 diabetes.
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/consult ... ilepsy.pdf

This pdf compares how this differs from current legislation
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00387.pdf

Just in case anyone has diabetes and needs some help and advice...
http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/healt ... 1-diabetes

Also folk over 70 have to renew licences every 3 years. I suspect the 74 year old in the Waily article perhaps had some other complication which her doctor will have noted to DVLA - sparking a further investigation before renewing the licence :popcorn:
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/rep ... ivers.html
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Dr ... DG_4022086

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 17:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Big Tone wrote:
And still my big issue is swept under the carpet of no compulsory eye test. :x



Surely people should be responsible enough to realise they need vision correction when driving? It's illegal to drive if your vision is not good enough right?

You advocating nanny state eye tests there Big Tone?

You'll be suggesting speed legislation is a good thing next!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 22:09 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
weepej wrote:
Big Tone wrote:
And still my big issue is swept under the carpet of no compulsory eye test. :x

Surely people should be responsible enough to realise they need vision correction when driving? It's illegal to drive if your vision is not good enough right?
You advocating nanny state eye tests there Big Tone?

You'll be suggesting speed legislation is a good thing next!
Safe eyesight, safe speed. No contradiction, if that's what you're suggesting Weep?

If you don't have good eyesight you wouldn't be able to see the speed limit signs or the speedometer you nutter! Right? :wink:

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 00:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I can understand the correlation of the point that he is trying to make, I think. If one is a 'technical infringement' and eye sight testing was also to become a demanded legal 'technical standard' necessity, then where is the 'difference'.
But one is based on a motorist responsibility to recognise a safe speed given the ever changing road environment, and the other is a health demand that already has a simple test requirement.
All motorists need good eyesight to ensure safe travel. As our eyesight deteriorates as we age we are likely to know ourselves when this is impaired enough to no longer be able to make safe decisions.
Some have noticed relatives who 'shouldn't be driving' perhaps, but we need people to be responsible and take these difficult decisions for themselves.
Whilst there is a natural reluctance to accept 'the inevitable' we know that this decision is ahead at some point. If we try to regulate every possible hint at a problem we will end up in a mess of regulation of which most will never show any improvement to road safety.
If we cannot justify the new regulation will show any improvement what is the point in it. And even then it has to be a valuable and worthwhile improvement. To legislate is expensive and time consuming, not to say legally adding to the Justice system and so on.
To regulate this way with diabetes cannot possible aid road safety and is a totally un-necessary expense that all tax payers will have to foot (yet another) bill. So is any value to be gained, after all, is there a 'problem' in the first place?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 14:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Quote:
6.3.
Applicants for a driving licence or for the renewal of such a licence must have a visual acuity, with corrective lenses
if necessary, of at least 0,8 in the better eye and at least 0,5 in the worse eye. If corrective lenses are used to attain
the values of 0,8 and 0,5, the uncorrected acuity in each eye must reach 0,05, or else the minimum acuity (0,8 and
0,5) must be achieved either by correction by means of glasses with a power not exceeding plus or minus 8 diop-
tres or with the aid of contact lenses (uncorrected vision = 0,05). The correction must be well tolerated. Driving
licences shall not be issued to or renewed for applications or drivers without a normal binocular field of vision or
suffering from diplopia.


Now, where did I read that a medical declaration will be needed for the compulsory 10-year licence renewal.........soon...

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 16:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
They forgot to add this to the above clause:

"Visual acuity will be tested to the above standard by asking the person to read a numberplate at 15 metres." :D

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 23:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
So will this mean that we will all end up with medicals, and compulsory eye tests and all the frequent re-visits (that we have to pay for), because some people have a problem?
How can we be really sure that those people do not adapt well enough not to crash ?
If they do not have incidents, why should many if not all end up going through all of this, just in case it picks up a few who may fail the test/s?

How long before there is a stream of 'ailments' that will prevent you from driving/riding ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
I agree with everything you have just said. The EU is a ridiculous, nannying organisation that, as I have said before, tries to usurp control from the individual and legislate for common sense. Our continued involvement with the EU is a disgrace. We used to be an independent, sovereign nation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.237s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]