User login
Newsletter
Stay informed about site updates!
Not Allowed to Take a Road Test
I received an e-mail last week from an older woman whose husband had been tested with a computer and then had his license revoked by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. The husband had not even been allowed to do a road test before he was told that he could no longer drive. Was this action allowed and had I heard about DriveABLE?
I can also add a bit of background from some time ago when the man had been asked to perform a memory test at the doctor's office as part of the medical exam required to keep his license. He found this test to be stressful, difficult to perform and again, she wondered what this had to do with driving.
Reading between the lines, the gentleman very likely suffered from a cognitive difficulty. The tests had identified this and the examiners at DriveABLE, who were testing on behalf of the Superintendent, found that the impairment was significant enough that an on road test was not required to find out he was no longer capable of driving safely. Physically, he could handle the vehicle, but mentally he was not capable of gathering and properly processing the information needed to drive safely.
The couple now faces significant personal challenges because she has difficulty driving due to physical health issues. Their mobility now depends on someone else and they are not prepared for what seems to them to be a sudden change in their circumstances. Like a beginner learning to drive, one must anticipate being denied the priviledge to drive and prepare for it accordingly.
Reference Links:
Comments
Received via E-Mail
Regarding the gentleman who had been sent to a Drive-ABLE outlet where he was tested for his driving ability on a computer program this is where I disagree strongly.
First of all many older people are not computer literate.
Secondly there is no computer program which can recreate true driving conditions.
Thirdly the person in question apparently has a good driving record.
Fourth there is no indication from the information stated that this driver should lose his driving privilege when there has been no offense.
My position on such testing is to use it as an adjunct to direct certain drivers for a road test. I think the cost and approach of this so-called testing is unfair, unproven and counterproductive to every citizens freedom.
Further to this I am very curious about who designed the system.
not allowed to take driving test
Thank you for your sensible answer,who did design this test? A test of a persons aptitude on the road should be the criteria and not a computer test as many people are still not able to do a computer test whatever their age. Sure one slows down and should be aware of this as one ages but many people are good drivers into their 90's. Surely previous records should have been taken into the reason for revoking a persons licence.
More Information
To learn more about this, including seeing a video of the test in action, please visit the Join This Discussion link either here or in the article above.
Follow Up Comment by E-Mail
My position on the Drive-Able situation I suppose tends toward the philosophical and science of mind as well as B.C. political , motor vehicle policies therein.
We have drivers insurance controlled by the provincial government as well as the motor vehicle act and now they seem to have entered into medicine as well . So you can see my skepticism?
I will am adding an incident which occurred to my wife and I a few weeks ago on a drive to Campbell River.
We were tailgated by a large Ford pickup truck almost on leaving Courtenay by way of the old island hwy. I turned on my 4 way flashers to indicate my concern and he backed off, for a few kms. then back he came more vigorously.
As we neared the 4 lane section near Salmon Point he became more aggressive until his grille was not visible in our rear view mirrors. I am experienced enough to know his bumper was about 6-8 feet behind mine. This was very dangerous indeed at the posted 80 km. speed limit.
My wife finally tried to take a photo through the rear window of my vehicle.
When we reached the 4 lane section he passed and we came in behind him at a safe distance . Soon he was tailgating the car in front of him as he had with us.
We decided to report his antics to the R.C.M.P. in Campbell River. The first officer we met made light of the incident and another officer took over . He listened and mentioned I should have just pulled over. The old island highway as you likely know is not conducive to this action due to very narrow shoulders which are generally grass . Then he remarked my rear window was dirty which did not give me a clear view!
We did get the offenders license plate number on the camera as he passed us. The officer then proceeded to explain that the driver likely had not planned on the time line to Campbell River and became impatient. I am sure the driver had his reasons or excuses, but they are not valid unfortunately.
We let the incident go but it shows the gray areas of human behaviour and enforcement of the law which I am sure you deal with daily. Such is the function of our brains and it is very hard to determine whom is more lucid and conscientious no matter what age.
I'm Sympathetic...
You were brushed off by the Campbell River detachment. I was actively discouraged and possibly even deliberately misled when I made a driving complaint to the Oceanside detachment after my retirement. I find this to be very disheartening and wrote about my experience here. Neither of us deserved to be treated this way.
I have always encouraged people to report bad driving, especially when they are willing to follow the complaint up by acting as a witness in court.
Neither driveAble nor the BC Medical Association is controlled by the provincial government. They may have developed programs or criteria for assessing a driver's capabilities but I hope that they are scientifically driven rather than politically driven.
Any decision of the Superintendents with regard to license cancellation or prohibition may be reviewed by the courts, so a person does have an avenue to pursue if they are able to show that the cancellation or prohibition is not merited.