|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 15/02/2020 18:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 6:05:30 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote: On 15/02/2020 12:33, Simon Mason wrote: On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:15:26 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote: Off hand, I can't think of anything equivalent to a driving licence that requires a declaration of fitness to perform a task. I was temporarily banned from driving by the DVLA after a serious injury and for me to get my licence back, had to undergo a mental and physical examination by my GP. I passed and regained my licence. Obviously you weren't applying for routine renewal at the time so how did the DVLA get the information by which it could "ban" you? Did you volunteer it or did it go behind your back? I don't know, it was totally out of the blue and was nothing to do with any information that I gave. So you dishonestly and selfishly failed to declare a medical condition which could/should disqualify you from driving but the system got there ahead of you and disrupted your plans to drive whilst unfit. Is there a downside to this? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 6:05:30 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/02/2020 12:33, Simon Mason wrote: On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:15:26 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote: Off hand, I can't think of anything equivalent to a driving licence that requires a declaration of fitness to perform a task. I was temporarily banned from driving by the DVLA after a serious injury and for me to get my licence back, had to undergo a mental and physical examination by my GP. I passed and regained my licence. Obviously you weren't applying for routine renewal at the time so how did the DVLA get the information by which it could "ban" you? Did you volunteer it or did it go behind your back? On the DVLA form to apply for a replacement licence, you can continue to drive if you self declare that you are physically fit enough ahead of a GP official test. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital following crash in Fleet
On 15/02/2020 18:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 6:05:30 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote: On 15/02/2020 12:33, Simon Mason wrote: I was temporarily banned from driving by the DVLA after a serious injury and for me to get my licence back, had to undergo a mental and physical examination by my GP. I passed and regained my licence. Obviously you weren't applying for routine renewal at the time so how did the DVLA get the information by which it could "ban" you? Did you volunteer it or did it go behind your back? I don't know, it was totally out of the blue and was nothing to do with any information that I gave. Then there does appear to be an independent way to alert the system. Perhaps there are other occasions when it ought to be used. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/02/2020 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 15/02/2020 11:15, TMS320 wrote: On 14/02/2020 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 14/02/2020 14:49, TMS320 wrote: On 14/02/2020 10:47, Simon Mason wrote: He said: "The first victim was flat out in the road not moving because he seemed to be entangled in his racing bicycle. He was being attended to by a passing first aider. "The second man, a builder, was laying on the pavement outside Travis Perkins' front door with head injuries and blood coming from his wounds." Not surprising. Fleet is a very popular town for the elderly. A system that relies on the applicant's honesty can't be a good way of extending driving licences. Can you think of many transactions between the state and the citizen which don't rely to some extent on the good faith of the citizen? Even a passport application, though vetted more than most transactions, ultimately relies upon the word of a person "of standing" who says they know the applicant. Off hand, I can't think of anything equivalent to a driving licence that requires a declaration of fitness to perform a task. No need. The applicant (who of necessity has already held a valid licence for some period of time until their seventieth birthday) is the holder - or subject - of a certificate of competence to drive. The certificate's details are recorded in the databanks of the relevent Department. It is (or was) awarded (effectively) by the examiner who conducted the licence-holder's last test, assuming it was passed successfully. The application for a provisional licence is the part that is no different from accessing other government services. If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? Straightaway, the system depends upon the honesty of the citizen. It is upgraded to a full driving licence only when the applicant can show competence to an examiner. Identity fraud aside, it does not rely on the honesty of the applicant. Yet it takes honesty or a Duke of Edinburgh moment to "hand a licence back". Er... quite so. Every interaction between the citizen and the state depends on trust to some extent. After that, the declaration at 70 is merely one as to whether has been a change. If you think 70 is too old for that, reflect on the fact that you might just as well argue that they should have been required to take another medical at (say) 65, which is an age neither of my grandfathers ever saw. Health and fitness are nowadays off the scale compared to a mere few decades ago. but you'd prefer to waste the time and resources of the individual and the taxpayer. Anything to with the luxury of driving should require the driver to jump through the necessary hoops. No need to involve taxpayers. The precedent exists for drivers of goods and public service vehicles. Anything other than an automatic "Yes" involves extra cost, necessarily impacting public funds (anf thereby the taxpayer). Perhaps you think that officer time and official resources don't cost anything. Government services I use are linked to an address. Apart from self assessment which requires honesty but nobody dies over an error of a couple of hundred Pounds. We still haven't identified a process where interaction between citizen and the state doesn't rely upon honesty and trust. I did think of the criminal process, where it is obvious that on many occasions, the citixen involved in the transaction is not "trusted", but even that fails the test, because trust has to be placed in witnesses and the forces of the state. I'm sorry to hear you never passed your driving test. It explains a few things though. As we have established, full driving licences are originally obtained by passing a test, not by self-assessment. (I passed first time, btw.) Nevertheless, the applicant is trusted to be telling the truth about his identity and about not having a prior record under another name (and/or in another country, which is assuming more importance these days). He is also trusted about things like epilepsy and other conditions which can, but most of the time don't, affect the ability to drive safely. On the other hand, if you only omitted your driving licence inadvertently then reflect upon the fact that your own fitness might not be all it was when you passed your test. And that you too will - if you are lucky - be 70 years old. Err... reduced fitness is *the* reason why independent opinion should be taken. Eye tests for over 60's are paid out of general taxation and a doctor's note costs less than a tank of fuel. What's so difficult? (Politicians worried about declaring "war on pensioners" perhaps...?) Let them try. However, I don't support those that want the elderly to re-take the driving test. As it stands, I don't believe the test is useful for experienced drivers. Having to retake the driving test is the equivalent of an indeterminate ban from driving. And in the circumstances you cite, it would be for the "crime" of reaching a certain age without having had the decency to die. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital following crash in Fleet
On 16/02/2020 11:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote: The application for a provisional licence is the part that is no different from accessing other government services. If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? If a provisional licence is issued on wrong information, the applicant would not be able to complete the driving test. Anything to with the luxury of driving should require the driver to jump through the necessary hoops. No need to involve taxpayers. The precedent exists for drivers of goods and public service vehicles. Anything other than an automatic "Yes" involves extra cost, necessarily impacting public funds (anf thereby the taxpayer). Perhaps you think that officer time and official resources don't cost anything. In any true/false procedure a false means that subsequent tests don't need to be done. Letters need to be sent out either way so it's difficult to see where cost is added. Nevertheless, the applicant is trusted to be telling the truth about his identity and about not having a prior record under another name (and/or in another country, which is assuming more importance these days). He is also trusted about things like epilepsy and other conditions which can, but most of the time don't, affect the ability to drive safely. People find loopholes but it's probably quite difficult for most people born and brought up in this country to get round an identity check through straighforward dishonesty. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 16/02/2020 12:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/02/2020 11:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote: The application for a provisional licence is the part that is no different from accessing other government services. If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? If a provisional licence is issued on wrong information, the applicant would not be able to complete the driving test. If he has been banned from driving in (say) Australia or Iraq, how will that physically prevent him from taking, and even passing, a UK test? I accept that he will not be issued the licence if he honestly declares the disqualification, but that is precisely my point: the system relies upon honesty on the part of the individual. Perhaps it ought not to, but it does. Anything to with the luxury of driving should require the driver to jump through the necessary hoops. No need to involve taxpayers. The precedent exists for drivers of goods and public service vehicles. Anything other than an automatic "Yes" involves extra cost, necessarily impacting public funds (anf thereby the taxpayer). Perhaps you think that officer time and official resources don't cost anything. In any true/false procedure a false means that subsequent tests don't need to be done. Letters need to be sent out either way so it's difficult to see where cost is added. You are assuming honest answers to questions where a truthful answer will mean refusal. I am reminding you that that is the textbook definition of trusting the individuual to be honest. Nevertheless, the applicant is trusted to be telling the truth about his identity and about not having a prior record under another name (and/or in another country, which is assuming more importance these days). He is also trusted about things like epilepsy and other conditions which can, but most of the time don't, affect the ability to drive safely. People find loopholes but it's probably quite difficult for most people born and brought up in this country to get round an identity check through straighforward dishonesty. The biggest "loophole" in interactions with the state is that it relies upon honesty, probably too much. "Have you done any paid work since you last signed as unemployed?" "Er... no...". |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 16/02/2020 13:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2020 12:45, TMS320 wrote: On 16/02/2020 11:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote: If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? If a provisional licence is issued on wrong information, the applicant would not be able to complete the driving test. If he has been banned from driving in (say) Australia or Iraq, how will that physically prevent him from taking, and even passing, a UK test? I was replying to the matter of eyesight. In any true/false procedure a false means that subsequent tests don't need to be done. Letters need to be sent out either way so it's difficult to see where cost is added. You are assuming honest answers to questions where a truthful answer will mean refusal. Obviously. Cost comes from letting dishonesty succeed, not from turning an application down. A doctor's note (barring the doctor also being dishonest) would make it more difficult for the applicant to be dishonest. The biggest "loophole" in interactions with the state is that it relies upon honesty, probably too much. "Have you done any paid work since you last signed as unemployed?" "Er... no...". That's partly why governments want to get rid of cash. And why our government carries out surveillance. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 16/02/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/02/2020 13:00, JNugent wrote: On 16/02/2020 12:45, TMS320 wrote: On 16/02/2020 11:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote: If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? If a provisional licence is issued on wrong information, the applicant would not be able to complete the driving test. If he has been banned from driving in (say) Australia or Iraq, how will that physically prevent him from taking, and even passing, a UK test? I was replying to the matter of eyesight. That's easy. Just send a ringer along to take the test. Remember: the test procedure relies upon the honesty of the applicant. In any true/false procedure a false means that subsequent tests don't need to be done. Letters need to be sent out either way so it's difficult to see where cost is added. You are assuming honest answers to questions where a truthful answer will mean refusal. Obviously. Cost comes from letting dishonesty succeed, not from turning an application down. A doctor's note (barring the doctor also being dishonest) would make it more difficult for the applicant to be dishonest. A doctor's note saying what? That the patient is fit and well? The biggest "loophole" in interactions with the state is that it relies upon honesty, probably too much. "Have you done any paid work since you last signed as unemployed?" "Er... no...". That's partly why governments want to get rid of cash. And why our government carries out surveillance. I have no serious objection to such moves in principle. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 16/02/2020 23:36, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote: On 16/02/2020 13:00, JNugent wrote: On 16/02/2020 12:45, TMS320 wrote: On 16/02/2020 11:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote: If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? If a provisional licence is issued on wrong information, the applicant would not be able to complete the driving test. If he has been banned from driving in (say) Australia or Iraq, how will that physically prevent him from taking, and even passing, a UK test? I was replying to the matter of eyesight. That's easy. Just send a ringer along to take the test. Remember: the test procedure relies upon the honesty of the applicant. I understand they have become wise to this. But we are still only at the identity stage, just like every other dealing. The requirements (for a person correctly identified) to get a driving licence remain unique. In any true/false procedure a false means that subsequent tests don't need to be done. Letters need to be sent out either way so it's difficult to see where cost is added. You are assuming honest answers to questions where a truthful answer will mean refusal. Obviously. Cost comes from letting dishonesty succeed, not from turning an application down. A doctor's note (barring the doctor also being dishonest) would make it more difficult for the applicant to be dishonest. A doctor's note saying what? That the patient is fit and well? Whatever is done for commercial drivers. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital followingcrash in Fleet
On 17/02/2020 08:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/02/2020 23:36, JNugent wrote: On 16/02/2020 14:42, TMS320 wrote: On 16/02/2020 13:00, JNugent wrote: On 16/02/2020 12:45, TMS320 wrote: On 16/02/2020 11:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/02/2020 18:05, TMS320 wrote: If an applicant answered the question "Can you meet the legal eyesight standards for driving using glasses or corrective lenses if needed?" with a "No", would the provisional licence be granted? If a provisional licence is issued on wrong information, the applicant would not be able to complete the driving test. If he has been banned from driving in (say) Australia or Iraq, how will that physically prevent him from taking, and even passing, a UK test? I was replying to the matter of eyesight. That's easy. Just send a ringer along to take the test. Remember: the test procedure relies upon the honesty of the applicant. I understand they have become wise to this. But we are still only at the identity stage, just like every other dealing. The requirements (for a person correctly identified) to get a driving licence remain unique. "correctly identified" In any true/false procedure a false means that subsequent tests don't need to be done. Letters need to be sent out either way so it's difficult to see where cost is added. You are assuming honest answers to questions where a truthful answer will mean refusal. Obviously. Cost comes from letting dishonesty succeed, not from turning an application down. A doctor's note (barring the doctor also being dishonest) would make it more difficult for the applicant to be dishonest. A doctor's note saying what? That the patient is fit and well? Whatever is done for commercial drivers. ....which relies upon the honesty of the applicant and that of the person signing as a doctor. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist did not go to hospital | Alycidon | UK | 3 | October 17th 15 03:48 PM |
Pedestrian mown down by cyclist dies in hospital | Mrcheerful | UK | 2 | November 19th 13 08:14 PM |
Another race cyclist in hospital | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 2 | July 15th 13 09:27 PM |
Woking & Frimley | elyob[_2_] | UK | 5 | September 4th 09 09:19 AM |
mountain bike crash sends pedestrian to hospital | Ken | Social Issues | 0 | July 7th 05 12:10 AM |