[David9694]

A new catch-all Tea Shop thread for those miscellaneous new stories that don’t quite fit with parking, crashing into buildings or trapped/prisoners in their homes. 

Topic

[David9694]

On it goes in Clevedon. So

On it goes in Clevedon. So you’ve had your independent road safety audit, but that’s not good enough either? Have you even got £375k. Remember this is just so a handful of local boomers can park up facing out to sea with their Daily Mail. 

Clevedon seafront road latest as councillor says it’s ‘not right’ to consider full reversal

Council officers have been asked to draw up a plan for how to implement major changes to the Clevedon seafront scheme

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/clevedon-seafront-road-latest-councillor-8960516

[David9694]

Police investigating the

Police investigating the death of a donkey foal following a hit-and-run on the B3078 Roger Penny Way near the junction with Longcross Plain Road seek witnesses

Launching an appeal for witnesses, police have revealed the offending vehicle left the scene…leaving a broken mirror and headlight glass on the carriageway. Due to the vehicle involved having a glass headlight rather than plastic lens, it is suspected that the vehicle involved is an older model.

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/older-vehicle-sought-in-donkey-death-hit-and-run-9343519/

I know it’s dark and all, but you’re bound to notice a neighbour’s car has a boshed in headlight and a wing mirror missing. 

[David9694]

About as tenuous a connection

About as tenuous a connection as it gets (no planning permission because no public transport) but it’s that time of year where kids go to the not-at-all-creepy grotto, to meet a Roald Dahl style Santa and wife, probably never to return. 

Santa facing eviction amid planning row with local council

Santa’s grotto has been welcoming children for years

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/regional-news/santa-facing-eviction-amid-planning-8953403

EDIT : Christmas “not cancelled” 

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/christmas-saved-frome-santas-grotto-8959603

[Rendel Harris]

brooksby wrote:

Remind me – why can’t the GP or optometrist report someone to the DVLA?

They can, the government guidance says:

Circumstances may arise in which a person cannot or will not notify DVLA. It may be necessary for a doctor, optometrist or other healthcare professional to consider notifying DVLA under such circumstances if there is concern for road safety, which would be for both the individual and the wider public.

and the GMC backs this with the advice:

If you become aware that a patient is continuing to drive when they may not be fit to do so, you should make every reasonable effort to persuade them to stop. If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop driving, or you discover that they are continuing to drive against your advice, you should consider whether the patient’s refusal to stop driving leaves others exposed to a risk of death or serious harm. If you believe that it does, you should contact the DVLA or DVA promptly and disclose any relevant medical information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.

[chrisonabike]

mattw wrote:

IMO that argument is weak.

Doctors already have a legal duty to report notifciable diseases.

Since such potential killer drivers are a hazard to public safety, I don’t see much difference.

One further issue is that there is currently no serious enforcement on drivers who do *not* report certain conditions etc, as per their legal responsibility.

While somewhat sympathetic currently I’d agree with HP.  Here I think the cases are not quite the same.  For one I don’t think there are (currently…) any notifiable conditions where if you show up at the doctors they put you down.  (You can get yourself sectioned of course which is disagreeable to most.   But by that point you probably aren’t thinking it all through).

I’m aware that this sometimes gets brought up as somewhere legislation *might* soften the principle of confidentiality (e.g. in the much more salient cases like plane crashes).  I don’t know if this has changed (following a fairly recent review?) but guidance does seem to say a doctor *should* notify in the case of medical conditions of interest and UK firearms licence holders*.

Although the law is also very clear having a firearms licence “is a priveledge not a right” (which is very much not how we currently view driving).

In the driving case I imagine for some conditions people may a) have some idea they have a problem and b) be aware that this could affect their driving competently and safely.  I would definitely not favour anything that gets in the way of them getting their condition assessed and hopefully addressed.  I strongly suspect that there would be an impact on people’s willingness to consult health services if they knew there was feedback – which on balance might lead to worse issues (for the individual and – via their driving – on everyone else).

* See fairly recent legislation and guidance for medical professionals) – in the latter it says:

Where there is a reasonable belief that an individual holding a firearms licence may represent a danger to themselves or others, doctors should ask them to give up their licence. … If the applicant refuses, a doctor should inform the police authorities firearms licensing department as a matter of urgency.” and “…If there is a public safety concern, or if the GP believes that the patient has not or will not inform the police, then the GP should contact the local police firearms branch themselves (or telephone 101) to report the new diagnosis. They should inform the patient that they (the GP) will be doing this.

[mattw]

IMO that argument is weak.

IMO that argument is weak.

Doctors already have a legal duty to report notifciable diseases.

Since such potential killer drivers are a hazard to public safety, I don’t see much difference.

One further issue is that there is currently no serious enforcement on drivers who do *not* report certain conditions etc, as per their legal responsibility.

[mattw]

Not a requirement.

Not a requirement.

[mattw]

HoldingOn wrote:

People can’t even have a wee without Mr Loophole getting involved

Man 45 mins into a two hour car journey fined

He has a good point on this one.

[David9694]

He hasn’t, as I believe the

He hasn’t, as I believe the Irish say, got a pot to piss in. 

[David9694]

drivers and their problems 

drivers and their problems 

Man slapped with £100 charge by ‘prison compound’ car parking company

He says the whole situation has made him “bloody livid” as he ?now refuses to give his money to private companies? and has even written to his MP about it.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/man-slapped-100-charge-prison-8957130

[wtjs]

In nine years of driving

In nine years of driving illegally (and dangerously, given he can’t see) the Lancashire Police didn’t pick up on him

Even a reasonably effective force would not necessarily detect such cases, but the determinedly ineffective forces are a different matter (I only know about traffic offences personally). I suspect no significant action has ever been taken over any of the offences I have reported since December 2018. Initially, years ago, I was told that warning letters had been sent, but I now suspect they were lying about many of those and they no longer respond to any reports. The complaint to ‘Professional Standards’ over the refusal to act over this offence resulted in a statement that they had to have confirmatory video from the alleged offending vehicle, and because there wasn’t any they’couldn’t do anything’.

https://upride.cc/incident/md68fwc_apcovernight_whitelinecross/

Over a year after these offences, they backed out (blaming, of course, the CPS) of the prosecution of these (same driver, same vehicle, same offences, same place, 2 days apart) because of a law they had made up where you have to have rear view video to show them actually crossing the unbroken white line from left to right- the obvious conclusion being that it’s legal to speed down the right side of the road and pass the start of the UWL in Lancashire :

https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_uwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_closepassuwlcross/

They are going to extraordinary lengths to refuse to disclose the actual penalty for this (nearly all of you have seen these, of course), after declaring they would be taking action from a provided list which included ‘no action at all’. There is no doubt that they can tell me what action was taken, because there are numerous instances provided by such as Cycling Mikey- they just don’t want to admit that it was indeed ‘no action at all’, and even LC are wary about lying in writing to a court. This quite an important case, because if all this ‘we can’t tell you because of GDPR, even though police forces are doing it all the time’ (courtesy of HoarseMann) dodge was removed, we would all know how little they’re doing

https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/

Finally, WU59 UMH, as I have shown too often recently, is still frequently seen around Garstang (last sighting by me 2 days ago) despite several reports, a Facebook page, a recent failed MOT for dangerous defects, and over 6 years of happy MOT, insurance and VED free motoring. So, even if they had been told about this ‘Death by Dangerous Driving’ offender above, they would just lie about it and cover it up

[Jogle]

HoldingOn wrote:

HoldingOn wrote:

People can’t even have a wee without Mr Loophole getting involved

Man 45 mins into a two hour car journey fined

But will he change his view when he finds out that cyclists often wee?

[hawkinspeter]

brooksby wrote:

Remind me – why can’t the GP or optometrist report someone to the DVLA?

Because they work in health, not law enforcement and the wider effect of getting health officials to report to the DVLA would be that some people wouldn’t seek medical advice for fear of being banned.

I think that the police should be responsible for ensuring that drivers are safe on the roads and it should be fairly obvious to spot a driver that can’t even see properly. We should focus on getting the police to do their job correctly before looking to outsource it to medical professionals.

I would suggest that if police see an erratic driver, they should pull them over and give them a quick eyetest (e.g. read that number plate over there) and determine whether they need to be stopped from driving.

[SaveTheWail]

If urine counts as ‘litter’,

If urine counts as ‘litter’, then logically that would apply whether it be human or e.g. canine urine.  Are dog owners required to pick up their dog’s urine?

[HoldingOn]

In nine years of driving

In nine years of driving illegally (and dangerously, given he can’t see) the Lancashire Police didn’t pick up on him.

Fits with everything else I’ve heard about them…

[Author]

Replies