'GP's to report elderly patients who are considered unsafe to drive' (1 Viewer)

[Movinon]

The thing we are all forgetting is that advances in technology are increasingly making driving safer. Many years ago my father-in-law ran into the back of someone when his muddy foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator. Had he been driving a car with automatic braking the accident would not have happened. Today you can buy a car which, among other capabilities, will brake if a pedestrian or vehicle approaches from the side. Soon autonomous cars will be on our road. Simply banning incompetent drivers is rapidly becoming an outdated idea. Restricting them to certain cars equipped with the relevant safety devices is the way forward.

 

[iandsm]

The thing we are all forgetting is that advances in technology are increasingly making driving safer. Many years ago my father-in-law ran into the back of someone when his muddy foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator. Had he been driving a car with automatic braking the accident would not have happened. Today you can buy a car which, among other capabilities, will brake if a pedestrian or vehicle approaches from the side. Soon autonomous cars will be on our road. Simply banning incompetent drivers is rapidly becoming an outdated idea. Restricting them to certain cars equipped with the relevant safety devices is the way forward.

By restricting the class of vehicle they are entitled to drive vie the license?

 

[Minxy]

The thing we are all forgetting is that advances in technology are increasingly making driving safer. Many years ago my father-in-law ran into the back of someone when his muddy foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator. Had he been driving a car with automatic braking the accident would not have happened. Today you can buy a car which, among other capabilities, will brake if a pedestrian or vehicle approaches from the side. Soon autonomous cars will be on our road. Simply banning incompetent drivers is rapidly becoming an outdated idea. Restricting them to certain cars equipped with the relevant safety devices is the way forward.

Sorry but if you are not fit enough (mentally or physically) to drive you shouldn't regardless of what 'safety' features a car has! The scenario you suggest regarding the muddy foot slipping is nothing to do with this ... the fact that your FIL thought it was safe to drive with muddy boots in the first place was rather silly IMV ... if he hadn't hit the car in front but instead hit a pedestrian would you be so quick to think that the answer to the problem was for him to have been driving 'a car with automatic braking' ... the fault wasn't the cars, it was his.

I am more than happy for improvements in car technology to be 'rolled out' but they should NOT be seen as a 'crutch' for those who are unsafe to drive in the first place.

As for buying "a car which ... will brake if a vehicle approaches from the side" ... the phrase "sitting duck" comes to mind!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GWAYGWAY]

.



[QUOTET] here is a method for doing this on the DVLA website

https://emaildvla.direct.gov.uk/emaildvla/cegemail/dvla/en/drivers_med_03.html[/QUOTE]
The trouble with that is it is the DVLC and they probably cock it up and stop you not the other person.

 

[Movinon]

Sorry but if you are not fit enough (mentally or physically) to drive you shouldn't regardless of what 'safety' features a car has! The scenario you suggest regarding the muddy foot slipping is nothing to do with this ... the fact that your FIL thought it was safe to drive with muddy boots in the first place was rather silly IMV ... if he hadn't hit the car in front but instead hit a pedestrian would you be so quick to think that the answer to the problem was for him to have been driving 'a car with automatic braking' ... the fault wasn't the cars, it was his.

I am more than happy for improvements in car technology to be 'rolled out' but they should NOT be seen as a 'crutch' for those who are unsafe to drive in the first place.

As for buying "a car which ... will brake if a vehicle approaches from the side" ... the phrase "sitting duck" comes to mind!

Did you actually read my post? If his car had been fitted with safety features available today it wouldn't have mattered whether the accident involved a car or pedestrian - he wouldn't have hit either. You may not trust technology, but the changes in law being introduced to allow for autonomous cars on the road shows that the government does.

The alternative is to callously condemn elderly people to a life of isolation in their later years. A million people don't have children to fetch and carry for them and many don't have convenient public transport options. The solution is not to lock them away in their homes but to ascertain and accommodate their limitations. Believe it or not elderly people who drive have rights too.

As to my father-in-law driving with mud on his shoe, when driving have you never talked on your cellphone or eaten a sandwich or sipped a drink or fiddled with your radio or lit a cigarette or adjusted your Satnav or looked at a map or checked out the shops you were driving past? All actions which could lead to an accident and can be condemned as "rather silly".

 

[tonyidle]

Sorry but if you are not fit enough (mentally or physically) to drive you shouldn't regardless of what 'safety' features a car has! The scenario you suggest regarding the muddy foot slipping is nothing to do with this ... the fact that your FIL thought it was safe to drive with muddy boots in the first place was rather silly IMV ... if he hadn't hit the car in front but instead hit a pedestrian would you be so quick to think that the answer to the problem was for him to have been driving 'a car with automatic braking' ... the fault wasn't the cars, it was his.

I am more than happy for improvements in car technology to be 'rolled out' but they should NOT be seen as a 'crutch' for those who are unsafe to drive in the first place.

As for buying "a car which ... will brake if a vehicle approaches from the side" ... the phrase "sitting duck" comes to mind!

The ones available now are used as a 'crutch'. I don't remember needing ABS or stability control or parking sensors. The MH & wifeys Smartie are the only vehicles we've owned with any of those things fitted. It would appear that todays drivers are being encouraged to believe that to use a vehicle without as many safety aids as are available is irresponsible.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MattR]

Did you actually read my post? If his car had been fitted with safety features available today it wouldn't have mattered whether the accident involved a car or pedestrian - he wouldn't have hit either. You may not trust technology, but the changes in law being introduced to allow for autonomous cars on the road shows that the government does.

The alternative is to callously condemn elderly people to a life of isolation in their later years. A million people don't have children to fetch and carry for them and many don't have convenient public transport options. The solution is not to lock them away in their homes but to ascertain and accommodate their limitations. Believe it or not elderly people who drive have rights too.

As to my father-in-law driving with mud on his shoe, when driving have you never talked on your cellphone or eaten a sandwich or sipped a drink or fiddled with your radio or lit a cigarette or adjusted your Satnav or looked at a map or checked out the shops you were driving past? All actions which could lead to an accident and can be condemned as "rather silly".

If elderly drivers or any other drivers are not safe to drive, they shouldn't; this is not about their rights, it is about their responsibilities. They will have to find some other way of getting around rather than putting other lives at risk. It may sound hard but not as hard as having to explain to someone that their loved-one was killed by a driver who shouldn't have been on the road.

In addition, I think that your reliance on technology to do so much is premature.

 

[sdc77]

I agree with @Mattyjwr
It's not about rights at all. If anyone is affected by poor eyesight, coordination issues or any other issue that affects their driving then they should be tested to see if they are competent. If not then no licence.
It's not a right to have a licence anyway as you have to pass a test to get it.

 

[jonandshell]

It is not unknown for DVLA to withold licenses for no good medical reason.
Their medical people don't seem to very knowledgeable.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[iandsm]

If elderly drivers or any other drivers are not safe to drive, they shouldn't; this is not about their rights, it is about their responsibilities. They will have to find some other way of getting around rather than putting other lives at risk. It may sound hard but not as hard as having to explain to someone that their loved-one was killed by a driver who shouldn't have been on the road.

In addition, I think that your reliance on technology to do so much is premature.

Couldn't agree more. I could foresee having to tell someone their loved one was killed because the driver didn't know how to turn on some anti collision device or has turned it off accidentally. Driving a vehicle needs a full range of cognitive skills and not reliance on technology which can for one reason or another never be a substitute.

 

[Minxy]

Did you actually read my post?

Now that is a silly thing to say ... you can tell that I did!

If his car had been fitted with safety features available today it wouldn't have mattered whether the accident involved a car or pedestrian - he wouldn't have hit either. You may not trust technology, but the changes in law being introduced to allow for autonomous cars on the road shows that the government does.

Extra technology to improve safety is one thing, not being safe to drive in the first place is not.

The alternative is to callously condemn elderly people to a life of isolation in their later years. A million people don't have children to fetch and carry for them and many don't have convenient public transport options. The solution is not to lock them away in their homes but to ascertain and accommodate their limitations. Believe it or not elderly people who drive have rights too.

I'm one of the 'million' who doesn't have children so am well aware that when it comes to the point that I can no longer drive things will change for me. Can you tell me though how many of those with children get the help they would like from them anyway? Not a many as you may think! A car is not the be-all and end-all, it is only one form of transport, most elderly people do NOT have to go out every day, some may want to but the vast majority don't - my FIL and his wife have a car but only go out 2/3 times a week at most.

Rather than try to keep unfit/unsafe drivers on the road with technology which wouldn't change their 'ability' status, it would be better to put efforts into getting the transport and support systems improved to give them the help they need to get around. My Mum is now 90 and when she moved to her flat many years ago one thing that she was happy with was that it had a bus stop not far away and by heck does she use it! She goes out virtually every day, even if just for a walk to the shops (about a mile) and is probably fitter than me! She never learned to drive and is more than happy to get around herself, if she comes to see me it takes me approx 15 mins each way to go get her, but she'd rather get 2 buses which take 45 mins each way!

As to my father-in-law driving with mud on his shoe, when driving have you never talked on your cellphone or eaten a sandwich or sipped a drink or fiddled with your radio or lit a cigarette or adjusted your Satnav or looked at a map or checked out the shops you were driving past? All actions which could lead to an accident and can be condemned as "rather silly".

Knowingly wearing muddy boots was very silly ... a bit like going out when the paths are icy with high heel shoes on - had his foot just slipped off the pedal that would have been one thing but you said yourself that it then went onto the accelerator - I don't understand that ... if the brake pedal was pushed in how could his foot slip onto the accelerator ... are his pedals aligned in a different way to normal??? Were his boots too wide so that when he pressed the brake it inadvertently pressed the accelerator? I'm not convinced that it 'happened' as you've been told ... but then again it might have!

I've never talked on my phone while driving, I won't have a hands-free kit or anything like that ... if I need to see who's called I'll pull over and check ... NO call is so urgent to need you to use it while driving. As for the other things, the difference is that if I choose to have a sip of my drink it doesn't stop me from keeping my eyes on the road as we have the 'squirty' type ones so you don't need to take the tops off; the only thing we alter on the radio is the volume which doesn't need us to look at it and is usually done by the passenger anyway; we've never eaten a sarnie, but sometimes a sweet (unwrapped by the passenger); checking map/satnav = done by passenger; don't smoke; shops ... only if I'm a passenger ... I'm not perfect by any means but if I CHOOSE to do something I don't do it when it is unsafe - for example having a sip of my drink would be on a clear road, or with no traffic near me ... not right in the middle of it! The difference between this and your FIL muddy boot scenario is he did not CHOOSE when the boot apparently 'slipped'!

 

[Southdowners]

It is not unknown for DVLA to withold licenses for no good medical reason.
Their medical people don't seem to very knowledgeable.

What are the reasons you mention?

Surely the DVLA would seek a doctor's report. I don't think they have their own medical people.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Puddleduck]

Extra technology to improve safety is one thing, not being safe to drive in the first place is not.

But might keep you safer for longer??? Not saying it should be relied on as it is an AID and nothing more.

Rather than try to keep unfit/unsafe drivers on the road with technology which wouldn't change their 'ability' status, it would be better to put efforts into getting the transport and support systems improved to give them the help they need to get around.

But that costs money from the public purse whilst the addition of more technology is paid for by the driver. Sorry to be cynical...... nearest bus route here is 4 miles away and most of this area does not have easy access to public transport (or taxis - the call out fee for a taxi to here is £30 and that is before you go anywhere).

As for the other things, the difference is that if I choose to have a sip of my drink it doesn't stop me from keeping my eyes on the road as we have the 'squirty' type ones.

You an also get the "camel pack" type where there is a tube / straw arrangement.

 

[Southdowners]

[QUOTE="MinxyGirl, post: 1647287, member: 149"Knowingly wearing muddy boots was very silly ... a bit like going out when the paths are icy with high heel shoes on - had his foot just slipped off the pedal that would have been one thing but you said yourself that it then went onto the accelerator - I don't understand that ... if the brake pedal was pushed in how could his foot slip onto the accelerator ... are his pedals aligned in a different way to normal??? Were his boots too wide so that when he pressed the brake it inadvertently pressed the accelerator? I'm not convinced that it 'happened' as you've been told ... but then again it might have!

... I'm not perfect by any means but if I CHOOSE to do something I don't do it when it is unsafe - for example having a sip of my drink would be on a clear road, or with no traffic near me ... not right in the middle of it! The difference between this and your FIL muddy boot scenario is he did not CHOOSE when the boot apparently 'slipped'!QUOTE]

I expect the boot slipped off the brake pedal onto the accelerator before the brake was depressed fully.

Surely what happened with the foot slipping was an accident. Obviously no-one chooses to have an accident - by their very nature they're unwanted, unplanned and unintentional. You can't plan everything in life


Edit... quotes didn't work so I've put quoted text in italics

 

[Minxy]

The basis of all of this thread is that ANYONE who is unsafe/unfit to drive should NOT be allowed to do so. Whether young or old - it doesn't matter. Whatever the consequences for THAT individual ... it does NOT give THEM the 'right' to go out and drive a car putting anyone else at risk.

Another example, if someone had shotgun who was able to use it correctly to go hunting but then over time their eyesight became such that they couldn't distinguish stuff they were shooting at clearly and killed someone 'by accident' as they thought it was an 'animal' they were shooting at ... they may not have done it intentionally but the consequences of their continuing to use the gun increased the risk of it happening.

As for the 'elderly' not having any other way to get around ... would you really want to try to explain to them that their 'right to drive' was more important than the 'right to life' of the person they have just run into and killed?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Movinon]

MinxyGirl

You've morphed "muddy foot" (after he stepped in a puddle getting into his car) into muddy boots, called my father-in-law silly and questioned what happened. Were you there or are you just trying to be offensive?

All those activities I mentioned come under the heading of "driving without due care and attention", and regardless of whether you think it's safe or not you can be prosecuted for them. One person thinks it's OK to drink something when driving, another thinks they are fine to drive home after five pints of lager. Both are illegal yet apparently anything you wish to do is OK. What happens when that child you didn't see on the apparently empty road (in your judgement) runs out in front of your car. Is it a case of "I'm sorry officer I thought the road was safe and I didn't brake in time because I was drinking coffee so I'm not to blame"?

You don't believe the (minor) accident happened as described and I don't believe most of what you claim in the last paragraph.

 

[Southdowners]

Rather than try to keep unfit/unsafe drivers on the road with technology which wouldn't change their 'ability' status

For some people this might be possible. Technology is advancing at a rapid pace all the time.

Disabled drivers have cars adapted to enable them to drive. Obviously it wouldn't change their ability status but it does enable them to keep mobile.

 

[Minxy]

You've morphed "muddy foot" (after he stepped in a puddle getting into his car) into muddy boots, called my father-in-law silly and questioned what happened. Were you there or are you just trying to be offensive?

Were you there when your FIL's accident happened? I suspect not, muddy boot or muddy foot, makes no difference, it was still muddy and 'slipped' onto the accelerator from what you have now said he knew he'd stepped in a muddy puddle! No, I'm not trying to be offensive at all, you're deciding to take that view of my opinions/questioning the incident - I am allowed to have my own thoughts aren't I????

All those activities I mentioned come under the heading of "driving without due care and attention", and regardless of whether you think it's safe or not you can be prosecuted for them. One person thinks it's OK to drink something when driving, another thinks they are fine to drive home after five pints of lager. Both are illegal yet apparently anything you wish to do is OK. What happens when that child you didn't see on the apparently empty road (in your judgement) runs out in front of your car. Is it a case of "I'm sorry officer I thought the road was safe and I didn't brake in time because I was drinking coffee so I'm not to blame"?

Now you are being offensive ... in my case I do NOT drink etc in streets etc where there are cars parked , or anything else where I cannot clearly see the road ahead including pavements etc - the time I would normally have a sip would be when on a wide road with no traffic, no parked cars ... nothing ... I'm well aware of kids, dogs etc running out as we've had it happen and stopped before hitting them. Drinking from a 'squirty' bottle is quite different from drinking coffee from a beaker/mug. Perhaps my being a motorcycle rider for many years has made me more 'aware of my surroundings' than some due to being the one that would come off worse if a car etc pulled out in front of me.

You don't believe the (minor) accident happened as described and I don't believe most of what you claim in the last paragraph.

I am allowed to query how it happened, as I said above ... you may not like it but I'm allowed to do so. If you don't want to believe what I've said, that's up to you ... I actually KNOW what I DO for a fact as I am the one doing it! You are stating you KNOW how the accident happened with your FIL but ... WERE YOU THERE??? It may well be how you original stated, only your FIL knows ... or maybe he doesn't for sure, only he can say.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[mustaphapint]

Mostly we are talking about other, older people here. How will we all react when we are told it's our turn? My own father lost interest in driving and let his licence lapse eventually, I hope I'm the same. It must be very hard if you believe you are still OK but young whippersnappers still wet behind the ears are telling you it's time to stop.

 

[Movinon]

Were you there when your FIL's accident happened? I suspect not, muddy boot or muddy foot, makes no difference, it was still muddy and 'slipped' onto the accelerator from what you have now said he knew he'd stepped in a muddy puddle! No, I'm not trying to be offensive at all, you're deciding to take that view of my opinions/questioning the incident - I am allowed to have my own thoughts aren't I????

Now you are being offensive ... in my case I do NOT drink etc in streets etc where there are cars parked , or anything else where I cannot clearly see the road ahead including pavements etc - the time I would normally have a sip would be when on a wide road with no traffic, no parked cars ... nothing ... I'm well aware of kids, dogs etc running out as we've had it happen and stopped before hitting them. Drinking from a 'squirty' bottle is quite different from drinking coffee from a beaker/mug. Perhaps my being a motorcycle rider for many years has made me more 'aware of my surroundings' than some due to being the one that would come off worse if a car etc pulled out in front of me.

I am allowed to query how it happened, as I said above ... you may not like it but I'm allowed to do so. If you don't want to believe what I've said, that's up to you ... I actually KNOW what I DO for a fact as I am the one doing it! You are stating you KNOW how the accident happened with your FIL but ... WERE YOU THERE??? It may well be how you original stated, only your FIL knows ... or maybe he doesn't for sure, only he can say.

Are you drinking hands-free? Do you not get it? YOU'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW. What other laws do you feel it's OK to break?

 

[Southdowners]

Are you drinking hands-free? Do you not get it? YOU'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW. What other laws do you feel it's OK to break?

Since when has it been against the law to drink non alcoholic drinks whilst driving?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

Are you drinking hands-free? Do you not get it? YOU'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW. What other laws do you feel it's OK to break?

If I followed that logic then taking my hand off the steering wheel to change gear would be breaking the law! The below is an explanation of what the 'no distractions' requirement in the highway code mean:

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/motoring/other_motoring_topics/500443.html

Will I be arrested for drinking, eating or smoking whilst driving?

It is not a criminal offence in itself to drink, smoke or eat whilst driving a vehicle however there is a potential punishment of failing to drive with due care and attention. It is therefore a matter of how the individual activity affects your ability to drive reasonably and safely on the roads.

A common example is when a person lights a cigarette. It can be very difficult to drive with due care and attention since part of that person’s attention will be concerned with using a lighter.

The Highway Code states that motorists must “avoid distractions when driving such as loud music, trying to read maps, inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio, eating and drinking and smoking”.
​

 

[CWH]

I know it's "unfashionable" on FUN to take any notice of Elf'n'safety, but I do, and here's an example of how and why (refer for detail to my post #33 above).

You can substitute my poor old dad with any other activity you like .....

Hazard = something that can cause harm my father's driving
Risk = the likelihood that a hazard will actually cause harm high due to deteriorated driving skills

First three steps in risk management:

• Identify the hazards his medical condition(s)
• Decide who might be harmed and how himself, passengers, pedestrians, other road users
• Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions scary, lots of near misses, lots of bumps with stationary vehicles - so evaluated as HIGH

Best precaution:

• Remove the hazard stop him driving (doesn't have to stop him going out) and do the activity another way use of taxi, Age Concern or other door-to-door service, ambulance, friends, carers, relatives (he can't use a bus)

Second best (if you can't remove the hazard):

• Control the risk no way of doing this so stopping him driving was essential - for others, new technology may help if available and affordable

 

[Puddleduck]

The basis of all of this thread is that ANYONE who is unsafe/unfit to drive should NOT be allowed to do so. Whether young or old - it doesn't matter. Whatever the consequences for THAT individual ... it does NOT give THEM the 'right' to go out and drive a car putting anyone else at risk.

Totally agree.

Are you drinking hands-free?

With a camel pack, yes.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jonandshell]

What are the reasons you mention?

Surely the DVLA would seek a doctor's report. I don't think they have their own medical people.

They do have their own medical people. They read the doctor's medical report and interpret it.
I know of an ongoing case where a driver, in great physical shape save for impaired kidney function, is on tenterhooks waiting for a letter to go to his consultant at the local nephrology department.
This person is 100% fit in every other way and runs marathons!

 

[Southdowners]

Why wouldn't your friend be able to drive?

 

[jonandshell]

Why wouldn't your friend be able to drive?

Ask the DVLA!

He is only 45. The DVLA's medical people seem clueless and want to pass the buck!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tonyidle]

Some of this discussion is bordering on farcical. Most things in or attached to the car are distractions and if some of the posters on here are to be believed should not be operated or attended to (or listened to) when the vehicle is in motion. There are a number of controls that we all use that require a brief amount of attention such as the lights switch or electric windows or the heater controls. These are no more or less of a distraction than turning on the radio or altering the volume or taking a drink. All require one hand off the wheel (some disabled drivers only have one hand on the wheel at any time) and a moment of thought. Because you are aware of the dangers these actions pose you will take extreme care when undertaking them. Other devices offer substantial distraction and re-tuning a radio, changing a CD, operating a mobile phone are some of them. Probably the worst I can think of is unruly children in the rear seat (some of whom may not be your children on a school run). Lighten up please - there are many dangers in life caused by other people. Being attacked by a poorly driven car is only one of them.

 

[Ivory55]

Can not be hgv driver as we only eat marathons and can just about run a bath. Haha

 

[cruiser]

I know Swansea have their own med team. I suffer from blood clots. My doc at the hospital rang them. And thy said I was still fit to drive HGV. But I don't. But I have had a through medical. And a eyesight test. And they all say I am fit to drive. So I get to keep my motorhome.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}