 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / December 2006Hero Saves Hypo Truck Driver
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cessnock-supermans-risky-rescue/2006/11/02/1 162339966881.html <snip> "Mr Thompson saw the truck driver swerving his semitrailer on Wollombi Road, Bellbird about 6.50am yesterday as he was driving his car in the opposite direction to work. Mr Thompson turned his car around, sped past the truck and parked his black Holden Commodore after noticing the driver was slumped over the wheel. He then ran across the road and climbed on to the moving heavy vehicle, pushed the semiconscious driver to the passenger seat, put the gear into neutral and pulled the brake. The 50-year-old diabetic truck driver, who had fallen unconscious because of low blood sugar levels, was taken to Cessnock District Hospital and remained in a stable condition last night." <snip> Well worth reading the whole story - the guy who saved him is a real honest down-to-earth hero. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Planning on the Net Wow - great story, Alan. Nice to see some good news. > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cessnock-supermans-risky-rescue/2006/11/02/1 162339966881.html > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ > latest: Planning on the Net > http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cessnock-supermans-risky-rescue/2006/11/02/1 162339966881.html > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Well worth reading the whole story - the guy who saved him > is a real honest down-to-earth hero. And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or two of a different type.  SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 >> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cessnock-supermans-risky-rescue/2006/11/02/1 162339966881.html >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or two of a >different type. It is a bit scary. To hold a licence for a semi there is no automatic requirement for a medical exam until the driver is 80 years old. (If he was driving a B-double or road train he would have to have an exam every five years.) All that is required is a statement from a doctor that the driver is fit to drive, and then only if he has notified the RTA about the diabetes. An annual exam can be ordered, and I assume that this guy will be having them if he wants to keep on working, but even then it's not going to pick up how likely he is to have another hypo. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >It is a bit scary. To hold a licence for a semi there is no automatic >requirement for a medical exam until the driver is 80 years old. (If [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >even then it's not going to pick up how likely he is to have another >hypo. Yes. I would hate for there to be a blanket prohibition on diabetics working as truck drivers. So much depends on their individual degree of control. For all we know, the incident in the original post might have been the first hypoglycemic episode for this driver. Within reason, I think we have to rely on the self-assessment of the drivers on whether they're fit to drive. After all, their own lives are on the line as well as those of the travelling public. >Within reason, I think we have to rely on the self-assessment of the >drivers on whether they're fit to drive. After all, their own lives >are on the line as well as those of the travelling public. I don't. Not when I may be the one coming in the opposite direction on that road. It's a difficult area - but that last phrase is the worry "as well as those of the travelling public". In this case it was also the people living in the houses beside the road. I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's support indicating that the patient has a level of control suitable for safe driving should be required. Not just for diabetes. When I was a cab-driver in Melbourne I had to have an annual medical; it was accepted by all drivers as part of the job, just the same as 0% blood alcohol content. That didn't save the lives of the four passengers when their cab-driver had a heart attack in Chelsea circa 1990, or of the driver - but I'll bet it saved a few lives as a result of the drivers whose licences were revoked when they failed those medicals. If the diabetic - of any type - can convince his doctor to take that responsibility, then OK. If the doc won't take that risk, why should we? I was asked if I was a diabetic, then had to get a doctor's signature when I renewed my licence this year because I had changed from diet and exercise to metformin: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/healthmedicals/index.html Disclosure of a medical condition for the first time A customer who discloses to the RTA for the first time that he or she suffers from diabetes, epilepsy, giddiness, blackouts, fainting or other sudden periods of unconsciousness, must provide a satisfactory medical report before he or she can receive or renew a licence. Customers who have already declared these medical conditions to the RTA can renew their licences provided RTA medical review requirements have been met. Customers with diabetes that is controlled by diet are no longer required to provide an initial medical report. And: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/downloads/renewmedicindex_dl1.html Medical and driving tests Summary The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) must be satisfied that all licence holders are medically fit to drive. A licence holder can be directed to have regular medical examinations because of a medical condition or because of advanced age. Some drivers must also have an annual driving test. Of course, no system is perfect. The driver in this case is from my state. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Planning on the Net [deleted] > I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's > support indicating that the patient has a level of control > suitable for safe driving should be required. Not just for > diabetes. [Personal and Australian details deleted.] Things in Oz look sensible and comparable to those in my country (The Netherlands), where the requirements for large vehicles (i.e. trucks, etc.) are more strict than for passenger cars. I.e. one *must* have a report from an endo (? doctor of internal medicine), which is not your own, and the validity both the eye-exam and license/renewal itself are shorter (5 versus 10 years). I don't know *why* Beave assumed what he did: B> And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or B> two of a different type. That he got a hypo does not mean that his license was unjustified. [deleted] SignatureFrank Slootweg, T2, 59+1y, Diag 4/2000, weightloss (81->68 kg), diet, 2 * 0.5 mg Repaglinide > [deleted] >> I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't know *why* Beave assumed what he did: Beav didn't assume a thing. The original post was quite clear in saying that a driver capable of going hypo was driving a truck. I said the person who gave him that license needed a lesson f a different kind and I stand by that. Drivers who are capable of going hypo to the point of unconsciousness shouldn't be in the drivers seat of a truck. Thank f.ck that over here in the UK, they're not. > B> And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or > B> two of a different type. > > That he got a hypo does not mean that his license was unjustified. It does in my eyes and I'm willing to bet that anyone who gets clobbered by an uncontrolled truck "driven" by someone unconscious, would feel exactly the same. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 > > [deleted] > >> I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > shouldn't be in the drivers seat of a truck. Thank f.ck that over here in > the UK, they're not. "The original post" did not say any such thing, and neither did the (website) article to which the post pointed. I.e. you assumed, and I said so. You are further assuming that "the person who gave him that license" was aware of the driver's medical condition and its (presumed (by you)) severity. > > B> And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or > > B> two of a different type. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > an uncontrolled truck "driven" by someone unconscious, would feel exactly > the same. SignatureFrank Slootweg, T2, 59+1y, Diag 4/2000, weightloss (81->68 kg), diet, 2 * 0.5 mg Repaglinide >> > [deleted] >> >> I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > (website) article to which the post pointed. I.e. you assumed, and I > said so. I made no assumptions. It's a legal requirement to inform the licensing authority of any medical condition that can impact on the ability to remain in control of a vehicle. If the truck driver didn't do that, then yes, I'm barking up the wrong tree, but as it's known he IS diabetic, it's a fair assumption that he DID inform the authority and his license should've been revoked. > You are further assuming that "the person who gave him that license" > was aware of the driver's medical condition and its (presumed (by you)) > severity. See above. >> > B> And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or >> > B> two of a different type. >> > >> > That he got a hypo does not mean that his license was unjustified. It most certainly does. Obviously you wouldn't mind being mowed down by an unconscious driver of a truck, but that's not for everyone, I'm sure. >> It does in my eyes and I'm willing to bet that anyone who gets clobbered >> by >> an uncontrolled truck "driven" by someone unconscious, would feel exactly >> the same. No comment on that bit Frank? Tell me, do you drive a truck and go hypo? SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 > >> > [deleted] > >> >> I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I made no assumptions. Yes, you did. Initially you said "And whoever gave him a license to drive a big rig needs a lesson or two of a different type.", and later "a driver capable of going hypo". You have no proof whatsoever for any of that, especially not the latter part. If you *think* you have, then cite the (in your opinion relevant) part(s) of the original post or/and website article. > It's a legal requirement to inform the licensing authority of any > medical condition that can impact on the ability to remain in control > of a vehicle. Maybe in the UK, but we're not talking about the UK, we're talking about Australia. FYI, our country has no such legal requirenment. It is *recommended* to inform the licensing authority, but it is not *required* (until the next renewal). > If the truck driver didn't do that, then yes, I'm barking up the wrong > tree, but as it's known he IS diabetic, It's known *now*. The *point* is whether it was known when his license was *granted/renewed*. You have *no* information about that. > it's a fair assumption that he DID inform the authority and his > license should've been revoked. His license should have been revoked because he was diabetic? In our country it *might* be revoked if his diabetes is not sufficiently controlled (i.e. (too high) risk of hypos). > > You are further assuming that "the person who gave him that license" > > was aware of the driver's medical condition and its (presumed (by you)) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It most certainly does. Obviously you wouldn't mind being mowed down by an > unconscious driver of a truck, but that's not for everyone, I'm sure. Don't be ridiculous. Of course I mind. But I *also* mind the unfounded stance that someone can not drive a vehicle just because he has diabetes. > >> It does in my eyes and I'm willing to bet that anyone who gets > >> clobbered by an uncontrolled truck "driven" by someone unconscious, > >> would feel exactly the same. > > No comment on that bit Frank? Tell me, do you drive a truck and go hypo? See above. SignatureFrank Slootweg, T2, 59+1y, Diag 4/2000, weightloss (81->68 kg), diet, 2 * 0.5 mg Repaglinide >> >> > [deleted] >> >> >> I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > "a driver capable of going hypo". You have no proof whatsoever for any > of that, especially not the latter part. Apart from the fact that he DID go hypo, you mean? If you *think* you have, then > cite the (in your opinion relevant) part(s) of the original post or/and > website article Cite what? The man went hypo and someone allowed him t have a license to drive a big rig. Somoen f.cked up and it wasn't me. . >> It's a legal requirement to inform the licensing authority of any >> medical condition that can impact on the ability to remain in control [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > country it *might* be revoked if his diabetes is not sufficiently > controlled (i.e. (too high) risk of hypos). And of course, there's no chance of THAT happening, is there? >> > You are further assuming that "the person who gave him that license" >> > was aware of the driver's medical condition and its (presumed (by you)) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> > >> >> > That he got a hypo does not mean that his license was unjustified. >> It most certainly does. Obviously you wouldn't mind being mowed down by >> an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stance that someone can not drive a vehicle just because he has > diabetes. If he has the kind of diabetes that can tip him into unconsciousness, then of COURSE he shouldn't be driving big rigs. Obviously, because it was only luck that (a) he didn't kill someone and (b) that someone happened to be clse enough to help him. >> >> It does in my eyes and I'm willing to bet that anyone who gets >> >> clobbered by an uncontrolled truck "driven" by someone unconscious, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See above. Ah, so you don't. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 > >> >> > [deleted] > >> >> >> I would think that at the very least some form of doctor's [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Apart from the fact that he DID go hypo, you mean? I must say that I have had dental appointments which were more fun than this (non) 'discussion', but let me give it another try: Yes, he did go hypo. But the point you keep dodging is, if that risk (*and* its severity) was *known* *at the time the license was granted/ renewed*! YOU DON'T KNOW (and neither do we (TINW). That's the whole point. Got it now? > > If you *think* you have, then cite the (in your opinion relevant) > > part(s) of the original post or/and website article > > Cite what? The man went hypo and someone allowed him t have a license > to drive a big rig. Somoen f.cked up and it wasn't me. Don't invent things! That's why I asked for a cite. The *reported* sequence of events is *the other way around*: He got a license and then he got a hypo. BIG difference. > >> It's a legal requirement to inform the licensing authority of any > >> medical condition that can impact on the ability to remain in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's known *now*. The *point* is whether it was known when his > > license was *granted/renewed*. You have *no* information about that. Failure to respond noted. > >> it's a fair assumption that he DID inform the authority and his > >> license should've been revoked. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And of course, there's no chance of THAT happening, is there? Is your stance that a diabetic should not be driving, period? If so, then why don't you *say* so? Why beat around the bush and accuse people without any cause/proof? With a diabetic, there's *always* a *chance*, but the point - both of common sense and of law - is, as I said, whether or not that risk is too high. Do you drive? If so, what's your excuse (for driving), giving your stance on the (truck driver's) case in question? > >> > You are further assuming that "the person who gave him that > >> > license" was aware of the driver's medical condition and its [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > luck that (a) he didn't kill someone and (b) that someone happened to be > clse enough to help him. See above. Most if not all diabetics *can* "tip into unconsciousness". The *point* is whether the risk (i.e. the likelyhood) is acceptable or not. Again, according to common sense (otherwise no diabetic can be allowed to drive) and law. > >> >> It does in my eyes and I'm willing to bet that anyone who gets > >> >> clobbered by an uncontrolled truck "driven" by someone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ah, so you don't. I obviously *did* comment ("See above"). But to answer your question: No I don't drive a truck (or at least not a heavy one) because I don't_have/never_had the license for it. But, I *do* drive a car/ campervan, and might drive a van or/and tow a trailer, and I *might* get a hypo. But the (legally required) medical screening has determined that I am sufficiently hypo-aware and adequately handle any hypo which might occur. Bottom line: I never *had* a hypo but I *might* get one, but the risk is considered to be acceptable. Analogy: Diabetes aside, is a 'normal' driver *guaranteed* to never cause a serious accident? Of course not. But the risk is considered to be acceptable. Guess what? They made "acceptable risk" rules for 'non-normal' people as well. Figure that! In closing: Why don't you spell out your *real* beef? Do you have a beef with diabetics driving? With diabetics driving trucks? With the level of risk of a hypo? What severity of hypo? Etc.. SignatureFrank Slootweg, T2, 59+1y, Diag 4/2000, weightloss (81->68 kg), diet, 2 * 0.5 mg Repaglinide >>Within reason, I think we have to rely on the self-assessment of the >>drivers on whether they're fit to drive. After all, their own lives [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >support indicating that the patient has a level of control >suitable for safe driving should be required. <snipped for brevity> As a practical matter, a doctor has to rely on the patient's own records and recollections when it comes to episodes of hypoglycemia. An A1c test doesn't give this information. Even an elevated A1c wouldn't be relevant to driving, since the real danger on the road is going too *low*, not too high. So, short of denying licenses to *all* insulin-dependent diabetics, we're left essentially with a self-assessment system. If a diabetic relies on driving for his livelihood, the incentive is to paint a rosy picture to the authorities. I can easily see such a diabetic maintaining two logbooks, one for himself and one to show the doctor and the authorities. >As a practical matter, a doctor has to rely on the patient's own >records and recollections when it comes to episodes of hypoglycemia. Not if the hypo was serious enough to need attention. If a diabetic is prone to hypos, it's unlikely the patient's regular doctor will be unaware of it. If it was serious enough to need ER treatment it will be on the record as well. If the diabetic is an insulin user then the doctor will be able to assess the patient's competence in BG management from many factors, not just A1c and FBG. In this state reports like the one quoted are quite uncommon, one hopes that is because the system works to some degree. More common, unfortunately, are accidents involving the elderly; including some quite nasty ones recently. At the moment an annual medical is required for those over 80 - I am in favour of reducing that age. >An A1c test doesn't give this information. Even an elevated A1c >wouldn't be relevant to driving, since the real danger on the road is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >maintaining two logbooks, one for himself and one to show the doctor >and the authorities. We'll have to agree to disagree I think. Not much more to say on either side - except to be grateful we don't drive on the same roads:-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: The Vatican > If the diabetic is an insulin user then the doctor > will be able to assess the patient's competence in BG > management from many factors, not just A1c and FBG. Interesting claim. I've been a type 1 for 25 years and have had several different docs. The best always will drill into details of bg management, adjustment of insulin dosages, and hypo management. (The worst start dictating to me how I should be doing things without listening first!) But none of that will prevent occasional extreme hypos. In fact the DCCT shows good evidence that the more effort is focused on tight BG management, the higher the incidence of extreme hypos (hypos requiring a trip to the ER or help from others.) Tim. Alexander Arnakis wrote in message ... >. . . . >So, short of denying licenses to *all* insulin-dependent diabetics, >. . . An interesting thread. In Michigan, U.S.A., insulin-dependent diabetics are disqualified for a Commercial Drivers License. That means busses, semi's, dump trucks, etc, etc, etc. The U.S. disqualifies IDDM from operating a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. I don't know if any States allow intrastate driving. ". . .Diabetes. If insulin is necessary to control a diabetic driver's condition, the driver is not qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. If mild diabetes is present and it is controlled by use of an oral hypoglycemic drug and/or diet and exercise, it should not be considered disqualifying. However, the driver must remain under adequate medical supervision. . . ." Regards Old Al > An interesting thread. In Michigan, U.S.A., insulin-dependent diabetics >are disqualified for a Commercial Drivers License. That means busses, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >considered disqualifying. However, the driver must remain under adequate >medical supervision. . . ." Yes, but is this fair? There's a fine line between legitimate public safety concerns and outright employment discrimination. I think the ADA's legal committee has been fighting all sorts of blanket exclusion rules for diabetics for years. For example, they've been able to lobby successfully for insulin-dependent diabetics to keep their jobs as police officers, firefighters, and even military personnel. The fairest approach seems to be to balance the individual's degree of control with the specific requirements of the job, on a case-by-case basis. Another thing to keep in mind is that if the rules become too draconian, diabetics will find ways to circumvent them. They may simply lie about having diabetes. And they might even pass a routine medical exam, if they temporarily bring their BG into the normal range (an A1c test is usually not administered in employment screening). (As a side note, I've been driving (not commercially) for the whole time I've had diabetes (41 years) without a single diabetes-related road incident. And I've never had to go to the ER, even though I've had lots of hypos. Should my driver's license be taken away just because I take insulin?) >> An interesting thread. In Michigan, U.S.A., insulin-dependent diabetics >>are disqualified for a Commercial Drivers License. That means busses, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >Yes, but is this fair? When it comes to regulations pertaining to commercial drivers in the USA, "fair" doesn't enter into it. BlueBrooke T2/D&E/June 2005 The things that come to those who wait will be the things left by those who got there first. >When it comes to regulations pertaining to commercial drivers in the >USA, "fair" doesn't enter into it. It should. As diabetics, it's up to us to fight for our rights. Make enough of a stink, and the rules will be changed. >>When it comes to regulations pertaining to commercial drivers in the >>USA, "fair" doesn't enter into it. >> >It should. As diabetics, it's up to us to fight for our rights. Make >enough of a stink, and the rules will be changed. Actually, I'm not so sure "it should." BlueBrooke T2/D&E/June 2005 The things that come to those who wait will be the things left by those who got there first. Alexander Arnakis wrote in message ... >>. . . .>> >>The U.S. disqualifies IDDM from operating a commercial motor vehicle in >>interstate commerce. I don't know if any States allow intrastate driving. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >had lots of hypos. Should my driver's license be taken away just >because I take insulin?) We are talking about a Commercial Driver's License not personal driving. Nobody takes away personal driver's licenses merely because of IDDM. Is it fair, are they balancing the individual's degree of control with the specific requirements of the job? They think so. Fireman: yes. Interstate truck driver, airline pilot: no. My reading of the statutes suggests the the driver in the O.P. would be subject to a $5000 fine and up to 90 days in jail if the event had occurred in the U.S. He might have received additional penalties if he had deceived a medical examiner. Regards Old Al > My reading of the statutes suggests the the driver in the O.P. would be > subject to a $5000 fine and up to 90 days in jail if the event had occurred > in the U.S. He might have received additional penalties if he had > deceived a medical examiner. Not to mention the basic charge of DUI. It doesn't matter whether the drug is alcohol, cocaine, insulin, or something else (prescribed or non-prescribed or over-the-counter). Tim. shoppa@trailing-edge.com wrote in message <1162739112.211495.144400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>... >> My reading of the statutes suggests the the driver in the O.P. would be >> subject to a $5000 fine and up to 90 days in jail if the event had occurred [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Tim. Yup. Michigan charges DUI for this kind of hypo incident. Regards Old Al >shoppa@trailing-edge.com wrote in message ><1162739112.211495.144400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yup. Michigan charges DUI for this kind of hypo incident. Back when I was a trucker we weren't permitted to drive more than 5 hours (or work for 5 1/2) without taking a half hour minimum break. (The hours were later reduced to 4) Many drivers (I was one) used to break more often as a matter of routine, the long distance coaches were often double crewed and the drivers would changeover every two hours or so. I used to get plenty of warning of what I now realise were "relative hypos" where the BG would drop, I knew the best thing was to get somewhere to stop and get my head down ASAP, after ten minutes or so I guess I'd liver dump and be on my way again. There are always a small number of cases of people "falling asleep" at the wheel and crashing (maybe including the guy who drove onto a railway line and derailed two trains), one wonders how many of them are as-yet undiagnosed diabetics. > There are always a small number of cases of people "falling asleep" at > the wheel and crashing (maybe including the guy who drove onto a > railway line and derailed two trains), one wonders how many of them > are as-yet undiagnosed diabetics. Probably some. However, too many (at least in the U.S.) are people who violate the law and falsify logbooks in an attempt to squeeze in more trips per month. There's a guy now charged with killing several college students near here in just that manner. SignatureWes Groleau Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -- John F. Kennedy <snip> > Not to mention the basic charge of DUI. It doesn't matter whether the > drug is alcohol, cocaine, insulin, or something else (prescribed or > non-prescribed or over-the-counter). The prosecutor might use the DWI (driving while impaired) charge in some districts. (Since that charge doesn't require specific blood test results.) Cindy Wells > Tim. >> My reading of the statutes suggests the the driver in the O.P. would be >> subject to a $5000 fine and up to 90 days in jail if the event had [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > drug is alcohol, cocaine, insulin, or something else (prescribed or > non-prescribed or over-the-counter). Actually, that's utter f.cking bullshit. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 [Default] On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:04:22 GMT, "Beav" <beavis.original@ntlwoxorld.com> Maniacally Screamed the following like a drunken "Beav" <beavis.original@ntlwoxorld.com> into the madness of usenet: >>> My reading of the statutes suggests the the driver in the O.P. would be >>> subject to a $5000 fine and up to 90 days in jail if the event had [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Actually, that's utter f.cking bullshit. DUI Driving "under The Influence" is not the same as DWI Driving "While Impaired". However both can cost you serious fines and your driving privileges. And depending on the circumstances you could face jail time. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . > [Default] On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:04:22 GMT, "Beav" > <beavis.original@ntlwoxorld.com> Maniacally Screamed the following [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > DUI Driving "under The Influence" is not the same as DWI Driving > "While Impaired". That was just my point Mack. However both can cost you serious fines and your > driving privileges. As, indeed, both of them should. And depending on the circumstances you could face > jail time. Again, precisely as it should be, although I'd hate to think an unfortunate diabetic CAR driver was jailed for causing mayhem "accidentally" when so many drunk drivers who KNOW they're drunk, get away with murder. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 [Default] On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Beav" <beavis.original@ntlwoxorld.com> Giggled into the madness of usenet: >> DUI Driving "under The Influence" is not the same as DWI Driving >> "While Impaired". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >diabetic CAR driver was jailed for causing mayhem "accidentally" when so >many drunk drivers who KNOW they're drunk, get away with murder. Beav is correct on this, I don't understand why some are complaining about his comments. Unless they couldn't figure out the difference between DUI and DWI. Ever since I was 8 I've been told that there are certain jobs that diabetics simply could not get. And with good reason. Now those rules are being challenged and people are getting jobs because they have had no recorded/reported history of having problems that would cause them to be disqualified from the job until after the fact. My own experience has been that if you are going to get any job where a hypo would put you or anyone else at risk, you damn well better be able to maintain control and do everything humanly possible to make changes in routine whenever a problem occurs to prevent from happening again. I recently had to under go a medical review in order to keep my job as an armed officer for my company. Granted the company did make some mistakes in the way they handled the case, but they were within their rights and obligations - to me and the other employees, to require me to prove I was fit for duty and that I had the ability to avoid further unconscious hypos. Thankfully, pumping has allowed me to do just that. While I am on duty I have my pump programmed in such a way that I run slightly higher than I do while I am off duty. I keep my BG in a range where a hypo is not possible, even if I have to delay a normal meal. Not something I could while injecting. The same thing applies to every commercial driver, regardless of the illness they may have. They are personally responsible for knowing their current fit/unfit status to drive at all times. As far as driving goes, it is very easy to pull over to the side of the road and test one's BG. The same responsibilities apply to every non-commercial driver(diabetic or not). If something is making you unfit to drive, you are responsible to get off the road. If it is a sudden hypo for whatever reason, having the medical condition and being able to prove you are in good control and under medical supervision may keep you out of jail, (no guarantee), but it won't keep you from getting sued. SignatureMâck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . >> An interesting thread. In Michigan, U.S.A., insulin-dependent >> diabetics [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > had lots of hypos. Should my driver's license be taken away just > because I take insulin?) No, not your drivers license, your COMMERCIAL drivers license, which is another story altogether. Commercial truck drivers are driving for hour upon hour every day and they pose a significan risk to anyone near their 40 tonne machines. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 > Alexander Arnakis wrote in message ... >>. . . . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are disqualified for a Commercial Drivers License. That means busses, > semi's, dump trucks, etc, etc, etc. Same thing throughout the whole of the UK and beyond. > The U.S. disqualifies IDDM from operating a commercial motor vehicle in > interstate commerce. I don't know if any States allow intrastate [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > considered disqualifying. However, the driver must remain under adequate > medical supervision. . . ." Much as I dislike being restricted inANYTHING I want to do, that's just as things should be IMO. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 > So, short of denying licenses to *all* insulin-dependent diabetics, > we're left essentially with a self-assessment system. If a diabetic > relies on driving for his livelihood, the incentive is to paint a rosy > picture to the authorities. I can easily see such a diabetic > maintaining two logbooks, one for himself and one to show the doctor > and the authorities. So give him or her the "benefit of the doubt," but if a hypo causes a death OR EVEN a near miss, the penalties should be severe. In fact, to deter false "rosy pictures," there should be significant economic penalties--with a reward for someone who reports someone deserving of being reported. (To prevent malicious false "turn-ins," the reward should only be given if there's a conviction.) SignatureWes Groleau He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else. -- Benjamin Franklin >> So, short of denying licenses to *all* insulin-dependent diabetics, >> we're left essentially with a self-assessment system. If a diabetic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but if a hypo causes a death OR EVEN a near miss, > the penalties should be severe. That's *sure* to be of some comfort to the relatives of whoever is killed. In fact, to deter > false "rosy pictures," there should be significant > economic penalties--with a reward for someone who > reports someone deserving of being reported. Rat on a rat? Just like the heady days of the KGB and the Third Reich then. Oh, and here too, right now. SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.