A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pedestrian and cyclist taken to Frimley Park Hospital following crashin Fleet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 16th 20, 12:43 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,174
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 10:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 11:55 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,203
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 11:56 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,174
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 12:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,203
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 01:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,174
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 02:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,203
Default 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  
Old February 16th 20, 11:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,174
Default 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  
Old February 17th 20, 08:14 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,203
Default 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  
Old February 17th 20, 10:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,174
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:14 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.