Another Car Another Front Door

whatwhat
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sep 30th, 2009, 10:06 am

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by whatwhat »

my5cents wrote:Not sure what you mean on a couple of issues.

"(his doctor) .... But there isn't anything he can do."
I hope that's not what the doctor said to you, because there is something a doctor can do, in fact there is something the doctor must do. Once the MD has formed the opinion that it is dangerous for the patient to drive, the patient should be warned by the MD that they should not drive. If the patient refuses or continues to drive, the MD MUST report the patient to the Superintendent. (see below)

"The client want to keep it, so his doctor needs to take the steps to help him with it."
Not sure what you mean, "the doctor needs to take steps to help him..." Certainly the doctor should treat his patient, and help him in that way, that's pretty normal.


Not quite sure what to tell you my5cents as this is just what happened with the doctor. All the information I have is what the doctor provided me with.

The BC Motor Vehicle Act states :

Report of health professional
230 (1) This section applies to every legally qualified and registered psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner and nurse practitioner who has a patient 16 years of age or older who

(a) in the opinion of the psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner has a medical condition that makes it dangerous to the patient or to the public for the patient to drive a motor vehicle, and

(b) continues to drive a motor vehicle after being warned of the danger by the psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner.

(2) Every psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner and nurse practitioner referred to in subsection (1) must report to the superintendent the name, address and medical condition of a patient referred to in subsection (1).

(3) No action for damages lies or may be brought against a psychologist, an optometrist, a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner for making a report under this section, unless the psychologist, optometrist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner made the report falsely and maliciously.


My client is already in the system for his disability. He has to go every 2 years to get his DL medical exam done. Which is what we did, and what provoked this whole issue.
hail Satan y'all
my5cents
Guru
Posts: 8337
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by my5cents »

Some doctors feel they have a responsibility to their patient, more than the general public or the law and don't follow correct procedure.

I recall a driver who had misdiagnosed brain cancer and retained his right to drive even though he had demonstrated on several occasions that he had a serious problems that his doctor was aware of.

Sadly (I say so, because I suspect it wasn't an accident) the driver/patient had an "accident" where he drove full speed into the rear of a parked semi flat deck, while alone in his vehicle. Killed instantly.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
User avatar
Symbonite
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4098
Joined: Feb 16th, 2005, 9:30 am

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by Symbonite »

Bsuds wrote:
I'm sure you know people who are this age and older and do you really think they all need testing?



In my Immediate family, yes I do...

My dad does every year now but he has to as he is Class 1 and transports and due to his age, has to be tested physically. and if hes not physically fit then he will no longer has his class 1. But how safe is it that if he failed the physical for the class one but still able to drive a normal car?

maybe thats what should happen..ok no retests...but Medically cleared to drive. some dont have the reflexes and dexterity to drive in a safe manner now. maybe not road tests but physicals.
**Disclaimer: The above statement is in my OPINION only.
User avatar
Rosemary1
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 984
Joined: Jan 24th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by Rosemary1 »

My neighbor is 92. He has according to him never been given a driving test . His wife (80) thinks he's getting dangerous because his driving his erratic and while he has had a lot of close calls no accidents yet. She wont drive with him anymore. She is reluctant to report him. She has talked to his doctor but doctor has not since he has no compelling physical problem.

While there is a way supposedly to report someone anonymously, does anyone really know what the rules are for requiring regular testing after a certain age and what exactly does that testing involve? Does it include a physical driving test or? regular testing after a certain age and what kind of testing exactly
TylerM4
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4330
Joined: Feb 27th, 2014, 3:22 pm

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by TylerM4 »

my5cents wrote:
? The Driver's Road Test has never been conducted by way of an interactive video.

Over the years driver testing has become more and less onerous. I say "more" because they are longer and more detailed. I say "less" because parallel parking is not required. I'm not sure if parallel parking is just left out of the test or if it's just an action that a test subject can fail and still pass the test.

Personally I think if someone can't parallel park they have demonstrated they don't know how to drive.


Nono. I'm talking about the driveable test. Not the test to get your drivers license. ICBC has a program called driveable - it's testing process doesn't involve a standard drive test. When I looked at it (8 years ago) the "test" was a very simple test that resembled a videogame. As mentioned - a 10yo with no actual experience driving a car could easily have aced the test.
my5cents
Guru
Posts: 8337
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by my5cents »

TylerM4 wrote:Nono. I'm talking about the driveable test. Not the test to get your drivers license. ICBC has a program called driveable - it's testing process doesn't involve a standard drive test. When I looked at it (8 years ago) the "test" was a very simple test that resembled a videogame. As mentioned - a 10yo with no actual experience driving a car could easily have aced the test.

Gottcha.

As I understand it, the DriveAble program tests "cognitive skills" so it's not a "hard" test with relation to tasks but hard or impossible if one is in failing health.

For that matter, even the actual knowledge test is pretty basic.

There's lots of laws and good practices that really can't be canvassed fully in a short knowledge test and it's not that hard to watch yourself during the half hour or so in the road test.

I guess the graduated licensing program and strict monitoring such as the very little tolerance for disobeying traffic laws for new drivers is a type of "on the road training".

For the elderly or the driver that becomes mentally or physically challenged before they reach "elderly", there is the requirement placed on the medical field to report and a procedure for the police as well as family and friends to adviseRoadSafetyBC people of a potential problem with a driver.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
Rcdc13
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 25th, 2015, 9:42 am

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by Rcdc13 »

george~ wrote:These should be mandatory.

Image

These barriers must be mandatory for sure. With all of the rules for building codes , why they have not made this happen is ridiculous. However, if a person has crashed through a window or even jumped a curb by choosing the wrong pedal needs to have their license taken away for a minimum of six months and be forced to undergo serious testing to determine theirs and our safety. I watched an 80 plus gentleman try for two minutes to raise his legs enough to allow him to actually get out of his car. How he could possibly react to any dangerous situation is beyond imagination.
my5cents
Guru
Posts: 8337
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 2:22 pm

Re: Another Car Another Front Door

Post by my5cents »

Rcdc13 wrote:These barriers must be mandatory for sure. With all of the rules for building codes , why they have not made this happen is ridiculous. However, if a person has crashed through a window or even jumped a curb by choosing the wrong pedal needs to have their license taken away for a minimum of six months and be forced to undergo serious testing to determine theirs and our safety. I watched an 80 plus gentleman try for two minutes to raise his legs enough to allow him to actually get out of his car. How he could possibly react to any dangerous situation is beyond imagination.


Is the solution to everything taking away someone's driver's license ?

Likely anyone who doesn't know which pedal is the "Go" pedal and which is the "Stop" pedal and that "D" mean forward and "R" means reverse, should have their abilities tested and tested fully.

Driving suspensions and prohibitions are punitive actions to punish someone so they will think twice before doing their act again. These old jokers aren't intentionally committing they stupid acts so penalizing them isn't the solution.

Testing them PROPERLY and FULLY and if they aren't 100% there licenses should be taken away permanently, but suspension, as part of a even successful re-exam is not the way to go.

Also accountability on the part of the testing system, including, but not limited to the driver examiners. There are good ones and bad ones. Who's testing the testers ????
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
Post Reply

Return to “South Okanagan”