http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36941584
I particularly like the sherriff’s comments at the end.

Different justice system up here. Still a good result though.

aye, I read that, pretty damning summing up.
Expected the usual “with regard to good standing”, “medical condition” stuff.

Really?

Banned for life – she should not have been driving with that medical condition in the first place. She probably even knew that.

So 300 hours community service for running down two people and causing life changing injuries entirely avoidably. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

Banned for life – she should not have been driving with that medical condition in the first place. She probably even knew that.

Report claims is was undiagnosed despite scans, i.e. her seeking medical attention. Not trying to shift the blame, but is it the person’s sole responsibility to make that judgment call (to stop driving) when medical professionals are involved? Should they not have said ‘well, we haven’t found anything but given the circumstances it might happen again so no more driving for you’.

but that is shifting the blame and yes it is the persons sole responsibility ahead of someone else actually stopping them.

She knew she shouldn’t be driving but risked it anyway, just like the drink driver does.

Should they not have said ‘well, we haven’t found anything but given the circumstances it might happen again so no more driving for you’.

They could well have said that. Even if they didn’t she made the choice to drive when she knowingly had a condition, even if it wasn’t fully diagnosed, that ultimately caused her to seriously harm two women.

I expect there will be a civil case following this up to claim damages

I occasionally suffer blackouts. Let me go for a relaxing drive.

What on earth was this woman thinking?

They could well have said that.

I guess as neither of us were there, we’ll never know but I can’t believe it wasn’t in the report if they had – ‘court told the driver had continued to drive despite medical advice’.

she knowingly had a condition.

Again, conjecture – but did she? She was concerned enough to seek medical advise 20 years ago but sent away without diagnosis. Would you think you had a condition in that situation? There must must be hundreds of thousands in that situation and I bet many of them are driving around today.

At the other end of the scale – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36953439

I had a friend who when driving out to the Alps passed out at the wheel, fortunately no-one injured, returned home and had a scan that found a “shadow” on the brain. Driving license was revoked immediately. The shadow turned out to be a tumour that eventually killed him.

Random blackouts? Hmm, the doctors haven’t found anything with a name so it must be alright to drive then. It would appear that selfishness trumps personal responsibility.

It may also be useful to highlight

suffering what she said was a seizure

and

claimed she had suffered

– could be the sheriff simply didn’t believe her, and it was rubbish driving..

It would appear that selfishness trumps personal responsibility.

I too am not saying that she has not got to take personal responsibility (hence the sheriff ‘s verdict) but just surprised that in a situation like that it’s left to the individual’s discretion.

edit kcal – very true.

If, as in my friend’s case, something specific is found then I think doctors are obliged to report that fact to DVLA and your license is revoked. After that it’s a grey area: one episode in ten years? An episode per year/month/week/day? At what point does it stop being a genuine “random” event and become something to be concerned about and not rely on others to make the call?

The DVLA don’t discriminate between partial and full seizures in their guidance (and it’s worth pointing out that her diagnosis of “complex” partial seizures means that she loses consciousness during them).

Recurrent unexplained loss of consciousness carries guidance that driving must stop for 12 months from the date of the last attack. If there is suspicion of seizure activity (does not require a diagnosis of epilepsy), then the epilepsy guidelines apply.

Her defence that no-one told her not to drive also doesn’t hold any water. From the DVLA site: “Applicants and licence holders have a legal duty to notify the DVLA of any injury or illness that would have a likely impact on safe driving ability”. So, if you’re not sure, you should inform the DVLA and get them to make the decision.

Of course, medical professionals also have a legal duty to inform their patients not to drive. I wonder how many patients I inform of the DVLA guidance actually heed it?

Whitestone – the guidance for medical professionals is here. It’s very specific about recurrent events and the definitions of these. It says recurrent transient loss of consciousness is within 3 years of the first episode.