So it is OK to faint while driving .....

[Crankarm]

I think people expressing displeasure at the acquittal and lack of penalties counts as condemnation, so yes.

The quoted article contains "It is a common condition and occurs in roughly half of all individuals during their lives.". The DM doesn't source that but it seems consistent with what the neurologists told my brother. Your extrapolation from this to a number of expected collisions needs a bit more work e.g how many are there and how many should there be for a start.

If you think having a reflex syncope while driving is negligent, careless, reckless or dangerous then explain to me how you're going to prevent it happening to yourself.

Condemnation does not equal knee jerk reaction.

I suppose if I had one on my bike then I am most likely only to hurt or kill me .........

I think you are so riddled with prejudices it is difficult having a discussion with you, so I won't .

 

[mangaman]

I would think there would be an awful lot of people contacting DVLA regarding the fitness of Johnson to drive....... Don't DVLA officials read the DM? Or would the CPS/Cheshire Police have automatically informed them?

No - it's her that has the responsibilty to inform them

If she's been barred from driving by a doctor, the doctor is not legally allowed to tell the DVLA except under exceptional circumstances (eg if she continues to drive against medical advice).

Even then the process is not simple as it involves breaching the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Certainly Daily Mail readers can't just ring the DVLA and ask about someones's fitness to drive.

 

[marinyork]

No - it's her that has the responsibilty to inform them

If she's been barred from driving by a doctor, the doctor is not legally allowed to tell the DVLA except under exceptional circumstances (eg if she continues to drive against medical advice).

Even then the process is not simple as it involves breaching the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Certainly Daily Mail readers can't just ring the DVLA and ask about someones's fitness to drive.

I wouldn't be quite so quick to say that, the DVLA find out about quite a few cases and people are banned, almost always for 12 months. That said there are quite a few epileptic people who seem to get away with it somehow and are out there driving. My mother has a lifetime ban from driving (she's not the only person I know in this situation) and people are very aware that if there's anything wrong with you it's 12 months to life so they'd rather keep things hush.

I don't really know what crankarm is on about as there are a fair number of cases where they have a one off black out, are looked at and concluded it won't happen and banned for 12 months. That's pretty standard. You could argue that the system in place is too harsh.

 

[MartinC]

Condemnation does not equal knee jerk reaction.

I suppose if I had one on my bike then I am most likely only to hurt or kill me .........

I think you are so riddled with prejudices it is difficult having a discussion with you, so I won't .

The condemnation seemed not be that considered so although 'knee jerk' is slightly perjorative is stiil seems appropriate. Remember too that I said that this was a quote of something I'd posted in another thread on another forum you might find is doesn't relate exactly to this thread.

I understand your reply to mean that you don't drive and that's how you can be sure it won't happen to you. Are you saying that the only way to cope with this eventuality is to stop everyone driving or do you have a more useful answer.

I'm still looking forward to your analysis of the number of these accidents we should expect.

 

[mangaman]

I wouldn't be quite so quick to say that, the DVLA find out about quite a few cases and people are banned, almost always for 12 months. That said there are quite a few epileptic people who seem to get away with it somehow and are out there driving. My mother has a lifetime ban from driving (she's not the only person I know in this situation) and people are very aware that if there's anything wrong with you it's 12 months to life so they'd rather keep things hush.

I don't really know what crankarm is on about as there are a fair number of cases where they have a one off black out, are looked at and concluded it won't happen and banned for 12 months. That's pretty standard. You could argue that the system in place is too harsh.

I never said people drive when they aren't supposed to, I agree that's very common - I just pointed out the legal side.

Most simple faints don't get a driving ban. Here is the relevant bit from the DVLA. This woman would fit into category 3 as the syncope caused injury - so if they've found and treated a cause she would be banned for 4 weeks / if not she would be banned for 6 months

"1. Simple Faint
Definite provocational factors with associated prodromal symptoms and which are unlikely to occur whilst sitting or lying.
Benign in nature.
If recurrent, will need to check the “3 Ps” apply on each occasion (provocation/prodrome/postural).
(If not see Number 3 below).

No driving restrictions.

DVLA need not be notified.

NB Cough Syncope see Chapter 7
No driving restrictions
DVLA need not be notified

2. Loss of consciousness/ loss of or altered awareness likely to be unexplained syncope and low risk of recurrence.
These have no clinical evidence of structural heart disease and a normal ECG.

Can drive 4 weeks after the event.
NB Cough Syncope see Chapter 7
Can drive 3 months after the event.

3. Loss of consciousness/ loss of or altered awareness likely to be unexplained syncope and high risk of recurrence
Factors indicating high risk:
(a) abnormal ECG
( clinical evidence of structural heart disease
(c) syncope causing injury, occurring at the wheel or whilst sitting or lying
(d) more than one episode in previous six months.
Further investigations such as ambulatory ECG (48hrs), echocardiography and exercise testing may be indicated after specialist opinion has been sought.
**for Pacemakers see Chapter 2

Can drive 4 weeks after the event if the cause has been identified and treated.

If no cause identified, licence refused/revoked for 6 months."

 

[marinyork]

I know what the relevant DVLA stuff is (why wouldn't I, I know quite a few people who've had bans). The point is they've been over applying this, we both know that people out there get longer than 6 month bans. I'm afraid your description of it gives it very much the impression of being far more lenient than it is in practise.

I'd add that the DVLA guidelines are more like how things should be.

 

[Crankarm]

I don't really know what crankarm is on about as there are a fair number of cases where they have a one off black out, are looked at and concluded it won't happen and banned for 12 months. That's pretty standard. You could argue that the system in place is too harsh.

See my post,

Maybe the rules or laws for drivers who black out/faint at the wheel should be changed so as they cannot get back behind the wheel so easily or cannot drive unaccompanied.

To my mind if some one faints, blacks out whilst driving then the presumption is that they should NOT be allowed to drive again unless they can establish that the cause of the black out will not recur. The consequences are too serious to allow drivers who have a pre-existing disposition to losing consciousness to continue driving. A leathered drunk driver is treated more severely with a lengthy ban for the safety of other road users. Whilst drink driving is a self inflicted choice and blacking out is generally not, the consequences can be just as devastating as the instant case has shown, if of course, she did faint.

I think a 3-5 year suspension of her license would be sufficient time to determine whether her condition was likely to recur given the loss of life and injury that she has caused on this occasion. She may never faint again in her life even if very surprising, shocking or stressful situations which would be remarkable.

 

[Crankarm]

I never said people drive when they aren't supposed to, I agree that's very common - I just pointed out the legal side.

Most simple faints don't get a driving ban. Here is the relevant bit from the DVLA. This woman would fit into category 3 as the syncope caused injury - so if they've found and treated a cause she would be banned for 4 weeks / if not she would be banned for 6 months

"1. Simple Faint
Definite provocational factors with associated prodromal symptoms and which are unlikely to occur whilst sitting or lying.
Benign in nature.
If recurrent, will need to check the “3 Ps” apply on each occasion (provocation/prodrome/postural).
(If not see Number 3 below).

No driving restrictions.

DVLA need not be notified.

NB Cough Syncope see Chapter 7
No driving restrictions
DVLA need not be notified

2. Loss of consciousness/ loss of or altered awareness likely to be unexplained syncope and low risk of recurrence.
These have no clinical evidence of structural heart disease and a normal ECG.

Can drive 4 weeks after the event.
NB Cough Syncope see Chapter 7
Can drive 3 months after the event.

3. Loss of consciousness/ loss of or altered awareness likely to be unexplained syncope and high risk of recurrence
Factors indicating high risk:
(a) abnormal ECG
( clinical evidence of structural heart disease
(c) syncope causing injury, occurring at the wheel or whilst sitting or lying
(d) more than one episode in previous six months.
Further investigations such as ambulatory ECG (48hrs), echocardiography and exercise testing may be indicated after specialist opinion has been sought.
**for Pacemakers see Chapter 2

Can drive 4 weeks after the event if the cause has been identified and treated.

If no cause identified, licence refused/revoked for 6 months."

So hopefully she could have her license suspended for 6 months. Presumably if the cause is found, it could be treated and any conditions imposed on her wrt driving.

As I stated above perhaps the rules need to be toughened up as some one who has fainted, killing and seriously injuring people should not IMHO be allowed to drive again in such a short time putting other road users at risk.

Anyway I don't think any insurer would ensure her certainly not without substantial medical evidence. Insurers are the people to have this sort of information as they are indemnifying policy holders. The instant case will cost her insurers a lot of money so they might refuse to continue to insure her, hopefully.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Sorry, am I simply being thick when I say that she could have simply fallen asleep at the wheel, couldn't she?

Isn't it her who is suggesting that she fainted, rather than any witness? (not that you could tell the difference from simply seeing it, I would suspect)

Are we to expect that in future if people fall asleep at the wheel they can simply say that they fainted and supply this as a test case to get off scot free?

Very sad, and clearly something was amiss (no brake lights etc.) but to let her off really opens up a loophole which can easily be exploited as far as I can see...

 

[Crankarm]

Sorry, am I simply being thick when I say that she could have simply fallen asleep at the wheel, couldn't she?

Isn't it her who is suggesting that she fainted, rather than any witness? (not that you could tell the difference from simply seeing it, I would suspect)

Are we to expect that in future if people fall asleep at the wheel they can simply say that they fainted and supply this as a test case to get off scot free?

Very sad, and clearly something was amiss (no brake lights etc.) but to let her off really opens up a loophole which can easily be exploited as far as I can see...

Indeed. It is possible, although she was using her mobile phone shortly before. If her defence is copied by another killer driver seeking to get off CDBDD then it would be a disturbing development in bastardy.

But Gary Hart who caused the Selby train crash in 2001 causing the death of 10 people fell asleep at the wheel of his 4x4. He got 5 years in jail and will now have been out for several years....... unlike the 10 people who died and their families who are no doubt still suffering.

 

[MartinC]

I think a 3-5 year suspension of her license would be sufficient time to determine whether her condition was likely to recur given the loss of life and injury that she has caused on this occasion.

I think the DVLA have fairly rigorous, medically derived criteria for assessing the likelihood of recurrence of the various medical conditions and ensuring that people don't drive while this risk is present.

What's very difficult to predict is the first occurrence of these conditions. Given the time it takes for cases to come to court it's probable this woman has already been through the process of not being allowed to drive until it's medically safe for her to do so. An arbitrary 3-5 ban for her won't prevent it happening to me, you or somebody else.

There are some possible mitigations for the risk of these incidents but they don't involve blaming people for illness.

Someone elsewhere has suggested that we could reduce excess risk by reducing the weight of vehicles we permit. You don't need 2 1/2 tonnes of Range Rover to get about so why allow the risk it creates for others.

Having a transport policy that didn't rely on solely on the private car is another. More public transport, cycling and walking would mean be less drivers doing less miles and thus less risk. It also makes the loss of a driving licence less of an arbitrary punishment.

 

[CopperBrompton]

For me, the most compelling evidence in this case is that witnesses reported seeing no brake lights at any time.

Anyone who has a collision is going to instinctively hit the brakes if they are conscious. This woman has hit a cyclist, then a car, then a lamp-post and *still* not touched the brakes.

I certainly hope she'll receive a medical ban and that the cause will be investigated by doctors.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

And you haven't RT ................... made it all up based purely on anecdotal evidence .

Just one lorry driver eh. I thought you were going to refer us to a learned and trusted body of medical research highlighting numerous cases.

I wonder if the medical opinion that was provided was supported by evidence from her GP or a local specialist showing a history of fainting? Or alternatively the opinion came from a "specialist" on a list of "specialists" defence solicitors use? It would seem awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time .

See, you're doing it again. You're making stuff up.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

No jibes, just suggesting that we need to exercise caution. Would you agree that we don't have all of the facts, and, that it is possible that the case for fainting could be strong? Certainly strong enough to introduce the required doubt?

Certainly strong enough to justify not making up aload of bollocks about it as Crankarm seems to be delighting in doing.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I think you are so riddled with prejudices it is difficult having a discussion with you, so I won't .