Changes to driving requirements in Qld

Submitted: Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:59
ThreadID: 31326 Views:2443 Replies:7 FollowUps:9
This Thread has been Archived
Check this out. Insurance companies must be rubbing their hands together.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Neil & Lynne - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:18

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:18
Sounds fair enough to me, if you are unfit to drive - medically or otherwise, get OFF the road as soon as you are aware of it.

Its a no brainer.
AnswerID: 158050

Follow Up By: Austravel - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:32

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:32
True but how far would you take it?? You've got a bad cold, sprained your ankle/wrist,, got a bit of Conjunctivitis, etc, etc, etc.

Read the clauses they are very open, then consider you have an accident, may not even be all your fault. The copper and or insurance company with this new legistation could have a field day.

"if you have, or develop, any medical condition, that may affect your ability to drive safely"

Still think it's a no brainer with the way laws are enforced at the moment.
FollowupID: 412409

Follow Up By: Neil & Lynne - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:06

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:06
"got a bad cold?" can't stop sneezing, then you can't keep your eyes open whilst sneezing....get off the road!

"sprained ankle?" can't apply pressure to the brake pedal.......get off the road!

"got a bit of Conjunctivitis".....eyes gummed up & can't see......get off the road!

I guess it comes down to common sense and whether the disabillity is of a permanant nature as in, perhaps blindness, unpredictable epileptic fits etc, in which case a drivers license should be handed in.
FollowupID: 412419

Follow Up By: Austravel - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:23

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:23
Common sense has nothing to do with the law. Of course the cases you suggest should "get off the road!". Maybe I should have made it really clear for you, I'm talking about minor symptons and who makes the assessment as to the fitness and how far an insurance company would like to take it..

All I see is that they continue to look at the easy options to reduce the road toll, lets take it a step further, stop all sick, fat, smokers, under 25 over 50, short, tall, ethnic, ........people from driving and if they drive 3 k's over the limit twice in a month slug them with double demerits,etc, etc. Why on earth would we expect any better.

FollowupID: 412422

Reply By: Mike Harding - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:32

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:32
I'm rather bemused by the listing of "hearing disorders" and "depression" in the list of illnesses which may get you banned from driving. Given the 110dB I regularly hear coming from vehicle's music systems even if the driver had the hearing of a 2 year old he couldn't hear anything anyway. And as for depression... well... Winston Churchill suffered from manic depression but managed to drive a country and win a war.

Mike Harding

AnswerID: 158052

Follow Up By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:24

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:24
G'day Mike,

A bit of catch all and no doubt only an issue for your insrance company when you have a prang. Just reading this stuff can raise the blood pressure and unfortunayely I have to wear hearing aides and am now left wondering if this requires me to step on the medical certificate treadmil. No point asking the RTA, the whole issue sux. This is what happens in a state where they have 1 house of parliament and the current government has a clear majority - legislation is passed without objection.

Kind regards
FollowupID: 412423

Reply By: Flash - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:32

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:32
Neil and Lynne,
I think you're missing the point.
It gives the powers that be (including insurance companies) incredible power to shaft people over often irrelevant symptoms.
Sure there are people who should not be driving, but where do you draw the line??
Yes we've all heard and seen horror stories of elderly or infirm people driving when they should not be.
But let's say you see your GP about recurring headaches, or a cold, or whatever.
Then have a prang on the way home due no fault of your own, but then find your insurance refuses to pay because they say you were unfit to drive...despite the fact you felt quite Ok at the time.
It's likely to become guilty till proven innocent.
AnswerID: 158069

Follow Up By: Austravel - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:44

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:44
Thank you Flash, maybe I didn't explain it properly.

Sure, it might not effect most of us but sometimes you get caught up in a net that is often impossible to get out of.

Why can they never look at the real solutions to reducing the accident rate such as better education/training, vehicle lock out units for booze and drugs, vehicle power limits for new licences, etc. Couldn't be because it'd cost money and votes could it.

The other big one in CQ at the moment is fatigue, there are stacks of single vehicle accidents, most not reported. Many due to the large numbers working in the coal fields and driving long distances home straight after finishing shifts. Some guys are driving from Dysart to Bundy/ Yeppoon/Rocky straight after finishing a string of 12 hour night shifts. Is this more dangerous??
FollowupID: 412428

Reply By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:43

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:43
Guys, isn't there an over reaction here. This is part of what it says:

'The laws will be strengthened to ensure that drivers who suffer permanent or long-term medical conditions that adversely affect their ability to drive safely notify Queensland Transport as soon as possible.'

Note is says permanent or long term. The examples above (cold, sprained ankle etc )would not be considered long term.

I think this change flows from a Coroners Court investigation from an accident where an epileptic person had a seizure while driving. Veered to the wrong side of the road and from memory, at least 2 people were killed (but not the epileptic).

I think the court found that the driver was acting within the law. They or their doctor had no obligation to notify anyone about this condition or how it may effect safe driving.

If my understanding is right, then I support the change.

AnswerID: 158071

Follow Up By: Austravel - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:52

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:52
True but I rang the mainroads as I have a couple of what I'd call minor health dramas. They had a lot of trouble defining "long-term" and "adversely". If they do then so won't others. Wasn't trying to scare monger just pointing out the changes and maybe wise for people to be very carefull. Especially if you think you might have a health problem that could make you fall fowl of the law.
FollowupID: 412431

Follow Up By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 13:01

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 13:01
G'day Norm.

Take your point but also they state,

"Prior to 1 March 2006 if you have, or develop, any medical condition, that may affect your ability to drive safely, you will need to contact your doctor so a medical assessment can be completed."

So I presume that if you have any medical condition and you are in a colision then your suitability to drive may be brought into question. And on a more sinister note your insurance company may feel that you hadn't disclosed such medical condition. Alarmist, maybe - but I have a healthy disrespect for these type of changes.

Kind regards
FollowupID: 412437

Follow Up By: Flash - Friday, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:32

Friday, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:32
yes you are right as to the reason they brought in the law, BUT.
It's a case here of a "kneejerk" reaction, which then leaves us with a poorly written law which can, and almost certainly will be be abused. (That's often the result when one has no effective opposition as we have in Queensland. King Beattie makes a commandment and all obey or else.)

We all know what the intent of the law was, but history is littered with badly written laws which are misused, and I think this one has that potential, big time.
After all, I have not come across too many insurance companies who are endowed with "compassion" when it comes to claims. If they can get out of paying, they will.
FollowupID: 412685

Reply By: dags666 - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 13:35

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 13:35
My wife has been a diabetic for 20 odd years and she has to take a medical certificate when she renews her license from the doctor saying she is fit to drive. I cannot see what the big deal is if you have a condition get a certificate and renew your license it is not only for your own safety but every one else as well Dags
AnswerID: 158083

Reply By: Michael B - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 16:03

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 16:03
Arpynoon Austravel,

It certainly raises a lot of issues, but I suspect not too many people would 'volunteer' to an inspection that may put them off the road, albeit for a short time.

One would hope that commonsense would prevail, p'haps not.

BTW a very good friend of mine only has one arm and has been driving for many years. To the best of my knowledge there is no restiction on his licence.

A very nice bloke but you would have to question just how good he would be in an emergency situation...indeed we have some strange laws.

It also seems strange to me that here in our small town some elderly people are restricted to 'town limits' due to their reduced driving skills/ability yet to my mind a fatal accident can just as easily happen in town.

Michael B (SA)
AnswerID: 158107

Follow Up By: Member - Blue (VIC) - Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 16:15

Thursday, Mar 02, 2006 at 16:15
a bloke I used to live near in QLD had 2 arms and no legs... He had his XC Falcon ute modified to allow him to drive... An attachment on the steering column with a handle allowed him to accelerate and brake with his right hand and one of those ball handles on the wheel to steer with his left. Only restriction on his license, and he used to joke about it, was that he could only drive an automatic...
FollowupID: 412486

Reply By: Member - Andy Q (VIC) - Friday, Mar 03, 2006 at 00:02

Friday, Mar 03, 2006 at 00:02
G'day Austravel, well I suppose I'm glad I have moved out of QLD, I have 5 of the listed 13
AnswerID: 158250

Sponsored Links