I have never been told not to drive. I've seen my doctor and a specialist and neither have suggested that the condition has an affect on my driving, but it is on the form.
This was about 2 months ago so the DVLA have requested further information from me which I've furnished.
They then wrote to say they were contacting the specialist I had listed.
They now write to say they are contacting my GP (whom I've not seen since seeing the specialist).
The DVLA point out that there will be delays due to Covid but seem quite prepared to grab low-hanging fruit and add to the medical profession's load.
If anyone ever asks - don't tick a box if you haven't been told not to drive. Stinks of "jobsworth". </rant mode>
Anyone else had similar experiences? Tempted to do a "Freedom of Information" request.
I think you are supposed to fill in the form truthfully with regard to medical conditions that may make you medically unfit to drive.
The driver is legally responsible for telling the DVLA about any such condition or treatment. The DVLA are legally responsible for deciding if a person is medically unfit to drive.
AIUI you cannot rely on a doctor to tell you you are unfit to drive and assume that if they haven't you are fit to drive. The doctor's job is primarily to deal with your health, not decide if you are fit to drive. The fact that doctors are asked to alert patients when they are clearly not fit to drive, does not change this.
It is hard to tell what you are complaining about?
Yes in as much I have helped people report to DVLA medical conditions when they were required by law to do so but not told to so by a medical practitioner. And then helped them deal with DVLA's enquiries.
No in as much as neither I nor they took exception to the way DVLA dealt with the matter. This was because in our experience:
a. the NHS is incompetent when it comes to telling people about such things;
b. our system relies on self-reporting. If people don't comply it's only a mater of time before we face a much more onerous system. Eg compulsory medicals for drivers *at their expense* annually after a certain age;
c. we're disinclined to risk the death or injury of other road users to avoid filling in a few forms and nit driving for a while;
d. DVLA weren't the source of significant delay. They all came from the NHS.
But at least you now know you're not the only one who has views on the issue :)
Leaving aside whether it's a waste of the doctors' time, are you being significantly inconvenienced? For example, are you having to refrain from driving whilst DVLA slowly investigate?
You'd probably be driving uninsured if you hadn't declare whatever it is that you have.
Occasionally, we do hear about catastrophes, such as the bin lorry in Glasgow where the driver fell unconscious and killed 6 people and injured 15 others.
There's certainly one about vision which I duly ticked in the run-up to getting cataract treatment. There was also another relating to whether one has had any eye laser treatment. So I ticked that one too, but also added an explanatory information sheet (the laser was to punch a hole on each iris in case I ever get glaucoma) that it had no effect on my vision.
Well certainly your insurance company, who would refuse to pay out if you had an accident. And the DVLA could easily cancel your licence and possibly prosecute.
9 years ago I had a heart attack and cardiac arrest. As a matter of course, a senior doctor (eg the consultant cardiologist, in my case) will notify the DVLA, so when I came out of hospital a month later there was a little letter waiting for me from the DVLA confirming the temporary suspension of my licence.
It then seemed to take an inordinately long time before the consultant a) saw me for an out-patients follow-up, and b) the DVLA wrote to say that I was now certified fit. It was probably about 3 months, but it seemed longer. I remember the day the letter arrived: I took my car out, driving very gingerly at first to make sure I felt safe, because the cardiac arrest had made me more cautious than normal when estimating whether I had room to get through gaps - both walking and driving. After a few miles I felt as confident as normal on the narrow roads (eg a very narrow archway near our house) and on the reverse-curves on another road. 50 felt surprisingly fast to begin with, and 70 on the dual carriageway felt positively sinful ;-) I made sure I drove within the limits of what I felt confident doing, until the "newness" of driving had worn off.
I wasn't certain whether I was obliged to tell the insurance company about a temporary suspension that had since been rescinded, so I rang them to check. They seemed surprisingly unconcerned: it wouldn't affect my premium and the chap said it was a grey area when someone suffers a temporary medical condition which is later deemed to be "cured" in the sense that it is deemed no longer to adversely affect my driving - but they said I'd done the right thing in phoning to make sure. I later backed up the phone call with a letter formally stating what I'd told them and what they'd responded, so there was no doubt that I *had* told them.
I've not told any subsequent insurer, on the grounds that if one insurer said they didn't have a legal need to know, subsequent ones wouldn't either. Permanent conditions like eyesight (needs glasses, or visual field restricted) or epilepsy are a very different matter! I was told that (surprisingly) I was no more at risk of having a second heart attack than someone who had never had a heart attack - as long as I take the routine medication-for-life such as statin and beta-blocker.
My out-patient's consultation and ultrasound heart scan was highly amusing. My wife had been told (while I was still unconscious and recovering) that I'd had a stent fitted in one artery, but that the others would need doing "later" (code for "if he survives"!). I only found out the date of the outpatients appointment a few hours before I had to turn up, and only because I phoned to say "I've not heard anything from you". A letter had got lost in the post - one which said "don't take your medication on the day of the test". So I turned up and they said "this will be interesting because your normal medication means we can't fully stress-test your heart". And when he did the ultrasound, he couldn't find any sign of the narrowings in the other arteries, and neither could a second consultant who was called in for a second opinion. So either the A&E surgeon had been mistaken or else the plaque in the other arteries had been dissolved by the medication I was on. Nine years later I feel fitter than before the heart attack and can cycle up hills better than my (healthy) wife who had to buy an electric bike to keep up with me.
That sounds a lovely success story. My father had a series of heart attacks over a period of a few years when there weren't statins and I doubt it helped him carrying on with smoking and drinking to excess.
I really don't see an alternative, I'm afraid. The drivers themselves are not qualified to tell how successful their heart op (say) was. The only sensible course AFAICS is for the drivers to declare their history and the DVLA to make independent enquiries.
If you think it's a palaver, do you have a better idea?
I've never been told not to drive. However Parkinson's is notifiable to the DVLA so the consultant told me that she would have to do so after I was diagnosed. IIRC the DVLA then contacted me and I had to send back my up to 70 licence. I then got a 3 year one, that ran out nearly five years ago and was replaced with a five year one. DVLA are currently in the process of contacting my consultant but under Section 88 of the Road Traffic Act I can still drive even after my licence expires as I have not been told not to drive.
I get the impression that provided you have not been told not to drive whatever your licence state was when the DVLA start a medical investigation remains until they either renew/issue a new licence or they take it away. If the investigation takes more than a year then things might get interesting as Section 88 cover stops after 12 months.
Of course if you do something else that gets you disqualified that still happens. B-)
There's a point to watch in cases where DVLA are bound to rule that driving must cease for a period. If you surrender your licence voluntarily you can start driving again as soon as DVLA get your application for a new licence. If you wait for DVLA to revoke your licence you have to wait until DVLA issue a new licence.
Based on my late wife's experience, if you voluntarily give up your licence following a cardiac event, as soon as you're recovered it's easy to get your licence back.
A friend of mine, while in his thirties, was diagnosed with cardiac arrythmia and fitted with a defibrillator or pacemaker or whatever it is. This was thirty years ago. Earlier this year he had a fainting fit and was referred to a heart specialist, who examined him and said there was nothing wrong with his heart and never had been.
If its diabetes, then the eyes are often affected, and some medication for other illnesses side effects can cause lowering of reaction time. Remember the gov need to cut down on car usage but not admit it to the car makers just yet. Brian
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.