Motorhome DVLA Medical Petition
I was reading in the latest edition of MMM about a guy who had recently been diagnosed, at the age of 64, with Parkinson's Disease which is a DVLA notifiable medical condition. As a result he has had his licence downgraded by the DVLA despite his doctors having no issues with his current abilities to continue driving his motorhome. He has created a petition on the Government Petition website here for anyone who would care to have a look. I am posting this here not because I am for or against but just thought it interesting as many people must find themselves in a similar situation.
David
Comments
-
Doctors who don't have any issues don't have to pick up the pieces after he causes a fatal accident due to his condition!
The DVLA are the licensing authority and are best placed to make a decision about someone's ability to drive, not Doctors with whom a person might have a personal relationship.
2 -
Yes, thanks to you for highlighting the confusion, M.👍🏻
1 -
A friend who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's is still driving although he has now sold his caravan after the death of his wife. I don't quite understand the comment by Simon100, for an assessment of fitness to drive is a medical judgement not an administrative one surely?
6 -
What it amounts to is the DVLA is questioning the integrity of the doctor and I find that annoying. I had a similar problem a year ago, My doctor passed me fit to drive but the DVLA saw fit to question his decision. It makes it a complete waste of time and money seeing a doctor in the first place. The whole question of fitness to drive needs revision. After a lot of pointless hassle the DVLA did eventually renew my licence.
peedee
0 -
Slightly off topic, but related, we are currently arranging for our Grandson to have a trial driving lesson/assessment.
He has autism and had to visit his GP as part of the licence application process for his provisional which DVLA has issued.
We do not think that he will have any issues with the mechanics of driving having attended a driving experience for pre 17 year olds.
What we do not know is how he will cope with the mental demands of driving on public roads so want to have this ability assessed by a qualified instructor and, in our opinion, this is something that the GP and DVLA have a role in but its only part of the picture.
0 -
I suspect it is more of a tick box exercise for them because they don't have the staff capable of making medical decisions at the initial decision point so they just remove a licence or category of licence. When Margaret informed them that she was now using insulin they immediately down graded her licence. That didn't particularly bother her but it was an illustration of how they react. Like a lot of petitions it does seem to be a bit confused. On the one hand the petitioner is objecting to having to pay for a medical and on the other asking for a reclassification of weights of certain vehicles that can be driven with a standard licence. Probably both are worthy of consideration but it does make it more difficult to support because of the confused message?
David
0 -
One individual case who wasn't happy with the decision V's the 1000's of cases DVLA must deal with. I would hazard a guess they have good reason based on statistics to make these calls. If you have a HGV / LGV licence you have to take a medical ever 5 years once you reach 45. My last one was a border line pass for blood pressure. Towing or driving large MH's without any sort of checks on your health or ability until your 70 needs rethinking and bought in line with the likes of HGV LGV drivers in my opinion.
If your fit and able you have nothing to worry about, just a visit to your doctor and fill in a form.
2 -
One individual case who wasn't happy with the decision V's the 1000's of cases DVLA must deal with. I would hazard a guess they have good reason based on statistics to make these calls.
I have known several long term insulin users who are in control and safe to drive and also have known several Parkinson affected people who were safe to drive until several years after initial diagnoses. One does not get diagnosed with Parkinson's on a Monday and become incompetent on the Tuesday. A blanket approach makes as much sense as banning all under 25 year olds from driving. To require a medical assessment does make sense however
0 -
The DVLA are unable to know or control the type of vehicle that anyone drives (eg, MH or HGV), or their ability. This means that a blanket compromise rule is the safest option.
Doctors are not infallible and can only report on a known/proven medical problem. Doctors may not be given honest answers to the questions on which they base their opinions and cannot guarantee the patient's driving ability.
If an accident is caused by a driver with medical problems, the DVLA rather than the doctor will get the blame. Hence the blanket ruling.
2 -
It is another way of looking at it but incorrect.
A simple proof is that by the fact that if you try and buy travel insurance, life insurance... once you own up to a condition, even a mild and simple one, you can say it is controlled all you want but the premiums will go up, why is that?
It is the same with car insurance, those with certain condition, however controlled will pay more. Why?
0 -
The DLVA will take it's rules from the government:
You can be fined up to £1,000 if you do not tell DVLA about a medical condition that affects your driving. You may be prosecuted if you’re involved in an accident as a result.
It is sad but safety on roads must come first before an individual's case. And yes one day I am sure there will come a time when I will not be able to drive for whatever reason
0 -
That however, does not make or reduce the risk of a person with a hitherto undiagnosed illness causing a problem
But it is impossible to calculate such a risk, and so irrelevant to this discussion.
people who have certain illness are at greater risk of causing accidents, even when controlled. (various studies have shown that 30% plus of written prescriptions never get issued at the pharmacy) and some cannot and should not drive so that is it.
As I said, sad but the greater good prevails. I don' agree about insurance companies doing that at all.
0 -
I don' agree about insurance companies doing that at all.
As DD says, insurance companies do their best to charge you more .... car ins co's will increase your premium if someone else hits you as you're apparently at more risk of having AN Other accident
0 -
they charge you more because the risk is more, they base their charges on the statistical retrospective data they have on someone like 'you' and what happened to them ('you') in the past. Now this cannot be individualised so you are put in with thousands others. Statistically their view is correct. The companies are 'policed' by the FCA.
0 -
...and the bankers were 'policed' by.....?
0 -
I know & agree with that but .... if you never get tested & have a specific diagnosis for blah blah blah then you don't get the treatment for it & you can't tell DVLA that you have it cos you've never been tested so don't know you have it. So you could endanger yourself & everyone else cos you're not being treated but you're not paying an increased ins premium. Which is what DD said
0
