[Closed] Cyclist killed on A9, another injured

hugor - Member
Why is it ok to prejudice against one extreme of the driver age group but not the other?

interestingly Druidh the only stats I could find were american and showed a sharp rise in accidents over 75 yrs old

It is impossible by the bedside after illness or injury to be able to determine if someone can drive competently. The only way to do this is a formal driving test which simulates the driving conditions. Therefore such responsibility must lie with the DVLA. People with all manner of disabilities are legally allowed and competent to drive but they are tested in their vehicle with the necessary modifications.

You've missed my point. Someone with a registered disability is very different to someone who has just had a brain operation, got severe epilepsy, been diagnosed with cataracts etc. How can the responsibility lie with the DVLA when they are blissfully unaware of it. I know of people who have been advised by the surgeon or consultant to refrain from driving or inform the DVLA of their condition but it is totally reliant on the individual concerned to actually do the right thing.

stevewhyte - Member
> druidh - Member
> If the drivers eyesight was so bad, how come she saw the cat?

Excellent

neninja

That can never be a medical professionals role - gross breach of confidentiality and of the ethics of the professional relationship

Junkyard - Member
"...Prejudiced discriminatory policies are ridiculous."
not as ridiculous as your example...

Exactly. It was intended to be ridiculous. Just like basing an argument on a characteristic which has nothing to do with driving skills.

the full sentence

not as ridiculous as your example unless of course you want to argue performance does not decline with age.

One might question her reactions and/or judgement but if she saw a cat then there's no reason to believe she wouldn't have seen two stationary cyclists.

That can never be a medical professionals role - gross breach of confidentiality and of the ethics of the professional relationship

"If the patient continues to drive when the doctor says s/he is unfit, the guidelines say that the doctor can inform the patient's next of kin, and should disclose the relevant medical information immediately in confidence to the medical advisor at the DVLA. If the doctor does do this s/he should inform the patient of the decision to do so, and write to the patient confirming it.

The doctor's duty to notify the DVLA about someone's health may override his/her duty of confidence to the patient."

nick1962 - Member

.................

The doctor's duty to notify the DVLA about someone's health[b] may[/b] override his/her duty of confidence to the patient."

http://www.mind.org.uk/help/rights_and_legislation/fitness_to_drive

TJ
Didn't want to get involved in in a debate about the semantics/pedantry vis a vis chronological age.physiological age or biological age etc as it seemed inappropraite considering the circumstances.
I'm guessing you saw the research from Florida about older drivers abilities ?
BTW I wasn't calling for any blanket bans because of chronological age but licenses should be dependent on capability.....and the older you get the more your faculties diminish

Sound.

Edit: deleted after crossing with post ^^

"I am surprised. Every days a school day on STW - whats the source? "

DVLA website has a link to a PDF quoting GMC Guidelines as follows.

"If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop driving, or you discover that they are continuing to drive against your advice, you should contact the DVLA immediately and disclose any relevant medical information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.
5. Before contacting the DVLA you should try to inform the patient of your decision to disclose personal information. You should then also inform the patient in writing once you have done so.”
(*Reproduced with kind permission of the General Medical Council) "

From Page 6 of "At A Glance" PDF

http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx

More here
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/confidentiality.asp
Not had a chance to read it all but does seem there are a lot of popoular misconceptions about doctor/patient confidentiality. Probably the same with legal relationships too?
Back to the OP.
It is a terrible tragedy for the victims and their families.
If some of the earlier posts are accurate then it may well have been avoidable and the driver may have been at fault.We are not in possession of all the facts so caution is needed and I know this may be hard for some to accept but I strongly suspect that the driver is devasted by what happened and probably witnessed first hand the aftermath of her actions.This will haunt her to the grave. This was not some wreckless maniac "joyriding" in a stolen car with scant regard for other road users but as other posts have said much more likley a misguided elderly relative who may genuinely not have realised that her capability had deteriorated to a possibly dangerous and in this case tragically fatal, degree.This is why a robust system of checks is needed rather that the current "self regulation" which various posts have already highlighted as inadequate.
From a cycling perspective I feel that we should have dedicated traffic free ,segrated cycle lanes running similar routes to popular high speed roads and if these were in place would be happy to see cyclists excluded from such roads and any further such tragedies avoided.