Jump to content


Drink Driving Medical


skodasuck
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6019 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Just wondering if anybody here has undergone/knew about the 'high risk offenders' drink driving medical examination and exactly what it entails.

 

Does it just test for alcohol and its effects on the liver or does it go into drugs? The DVLA website is no help and I cannot find the information anywhere.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Just wondering if anybody here has undergone/knew about the 'high risk offenders' drink driving medical examination and exactly what it entails.

 

Does it just test for alcohol and its effects on the liver or does it go into drugs? The DVLA website is no help and I cannot find the information anywhere.

 

Thanks

 

One of my employees went through this.

 

He had to have a blood test taken with no alcohol or drugs in the system before they would proceed further.

 

Drug driving is just as dangerous as drink driving - it's just that roadside/police station testing isn't as advanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Well, I went through the DVLA medical very recently having been considered a "high risk offender" - I failed to supply a specimen of blood for analysis.

 

The test consists of (from memory):

 

A blood test for Liver Function Tests

A medical interview with the doctor

A "basic" physical examination (prodding abdomen, weighing you)

A urine test.

 

Basically, they are trying to see if you drink heavily, have problems with alcohol/drugs and therefore may be a risk on the road. Simple really, or is it?

 

As I've said, I attended one recently. Prior to this and in anticipation I completely cut out drink - 100% stopped drinking from about three weeks leading up. Incidentally, I have probably drunk well below the average for over 12 months now anyway.

 

So, I also attended my GP so as to get a "clean bill of health" on a voluntary basis as I require a medical for my job. Not expecting any problems I was taken aback to find that I have a mildly deranged liver function! This is not good news if you want to get a DVLA medical passed. I've never had a LFT before and have never had cause to query my liver or have it tested. I was taken aback. In the interim, my doctor had received a letter from the DVLA requesting that he give reason for the result which was out of range or they have no option but to refuse my application. I'm a fit and well 32 year old male by the way.

 

Now, some 2 months have passed since I stopped drinking altogether. I have taken no medication. I feel fit and well. I have no reason to question my health other than this mystery result. I've just paid £183 for a private ultrasound scan of my liver which, I am told, will unlikely reveal an anomaly (i.e. no gallstones).

 

I've been tested for Hepatitis and I'm clear. There is no logical explanation for it other than the fact that I'm reminded that they are "mild". Too mild to be seen any sooner than 3 months at the NHS for a scan, but not mild enough for the DVLA to issue me a licence. Somewhere, ludicrously enough, between the devil and the deep blue see!

 

I know that these tests are designed to catch the drinkers out - and so they should. I've done some stupid things in my time but to drink before or during this investigation is out of the question - especially when I've got my career, amongst other things, riding on it.

 

The paradox is this: I want something to be found so that I can get my license back, but on the other hand I want the clean bill of health I seemingly have and deserve.

 

Frustrated, I rang the DVLA and asked them to hold the application in abeyance whilst I go through the guinea pig stage. I asked to speak with someone who new what they were talking about but they said that their doctors only talk to other doctors and that any further correspondence should be put in writing.

 

Well, I'm flabbergasted - well and truly. My doctor believes me when I say I haven't had any alcohol at all. Indeed, the tests results seem to be curiously on the increase. As God is my witness I've drunk none at all. That's aboslute honesty and if I were kidding I'd be only kidding myself - and I wouldn't do that.

 

The question for me is if they find nothing wrong with me - apparently it is possible to have a higher than normal liver function for no reason other than that's they way you were born. But the DVLA won't agree to that. They presume I'm a boozer. Where next??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi renesis,

 

This is another government abuse, which I want to take to court.

 

I am sorry but it makes no sense to me whatsoever, you get disqualified from driving for an alcohol related offence and then have to undergo a medical - how come you don't have to undergo a medical when first applying for your licence?

 

Disqualification means, a qualification removed - so why aren't the same rules followed to re-qualify?

 

'Failure to provide' is my pet hate at the moment, because it is silly.

 

OK say you get arrested and go to a police station, you refuse to have your fingerprints taken or photo taken - the police can force you to do it.

 

Same with drugs offences, they can force you to have a drugs test.

 

So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties. Surely can't the police just get a forced blood test like they do with drugs?

 

Our police state is mad.

 

Dani

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Failure to provide' is my pet hate at the moment, because it is silly.

 

 

 

No it's not, it's an offence. It has been for a very long time. If someone is stupid enough to fail to provide then they deserve all they get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not, it's an offence. It has been for a very long time. If someone is stupid enough to fail to provide then they deserve all they get.

 

Do you see a failure to provide offence for drugs, or a failure to provide offence for fingerprints?

 

The answer is no, thats why it is silly.

 

I am fairly sure that a couple of burly policemen can hold me down and get a blood sample (via a doctor of course), or even force me to blow into a tube (before I run out of breath).

 

As an added bonus it would clear all the failure to provide cases off the courts schedule too.

 

 

Dani

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate all feedback, but I think you may not have thought it through.

 

A persons reason not to give a sample may be out of religious reasons, fear of disease and all sorts of other reasons.

 

Dani

 

Dani, what a load of boloney. Yet again you contradict yourself. One minute your saying that the police could easily force someone into giving a blood sample, then the next your saying that people could be refusing on religious grounds. Therefore you are implying that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to refuse to provide a sample. Also how the hell would they be able to force you into providing a breath test?

 

As for freeing up the courts time on failing to provide charges, again nonsense as almost all who refuse to give a sample do so for one reason only and that is that they are wholly aware that they are well and truly over the legal limit. Therefore would be appearing in court anyway.

 

It really is about time, you took time out to consider the nonsense that you keep trotting out on these pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah another insulting post, I can barely keep up with the posters on this board that like to insult me :)

 

As for freeing up the courts time on failing to provide charges, again nonsense as almost all who refuse to give a sample do so for one reason only and that is that they are wholly aware that they are well and truly over the legal limit. Therefore would be appearing in court anyway.

 

You obviously have a very dim view of people, were you always so narcissistic - or did it come on just now?

 

You seem to think I like people drink driving, well no I don't as drink driving has repercussions on everyone, pedestrians, other drivers etc.

 

I peronally had a cousin who was killed by a drunk driver, so I am quite happy for people caught driving over the limit - to have the book thrown at them.

 

However, I do not tar everyone with the same brush - if there are grounds for doubt, then those grounds should be removed, for whatever reason.

 

If a person can be forced to give a blood test for drugs, why not for alcohol?

 

Yes people do have legitimate reasons for failure to provide, granted most may just be trying to avoid a sentence, but there are always some which are totally innocent.

 

 

Dani

Link to post
Share on other sites

My OH had a really dreadful result on a liver function test - they did it three times and in the end I happened to read the leaflet with the tablets he takes every day and discovered that these tablets (zantac) can cause irregular readings on these tests!!! His doctor was confused as OH is not what you would call a drinker and he knew that. But it was scary at the time:o

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah another insulting post, I can barely keep up with the posters on this board that like to insult me

 

Nobody is insulting you, merely pointing out that (once again) you are posting complete drivel and contradicting yourself. If you can "barely keep up with the posters" who say this then have you wondered why this may be?

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hi-jack but Danny are you Scottish, the strange spelling of your surname and you losing a cousin to a drink driver makes me wonder if you're related to my step-family who are Scottish and come from a village near Glasgow?

Any posts submitted here on the Consumer Action Group under the user name GlasweJen may not necessarily be the view of the poster, CAG or indeed any normal person.

 

I've become addicted to green blobs (I have 2 now) so feel free to tip my scales if I ever make sense.;-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes people do have legitimate reasons for failure to provide, granted most may just be trying to avoid a sentence, but there are always some which are totally innocent.

 

 

Dani

 

I personally can't see any legitimate reason to refuse to provide a sample, but as you seem to think there are, please enlighten me. To be charged with failing to provide, iirc, you would need to have refused to give any of the samples requested, and the chances of you having a valid reason to refuse each test would be very slim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally can't see any legitimate reason to refuse to provide a sample, but as you seem to think there are, please enlighten me. To be charged with failing to provide, iirc, you would need to have refused to give any of the samples requested, and the chances of you having a valid reason to refuse each test would be very slim.

 

Hi kregrs,

 

Failure to provide - is not just refusal to provide, it is also when you have been given the test and have failed to provide enough breath.

 

The most common reasons for Failure to provide/Refusal to provide (which have been successfully used in cases) are:

 

Asthma

Bronchial infection/Bronchitis

Lung problems

Heart Problems

Shock

Nerves/Stress

Inability to understand what is being asked, due to injury,disability, language barrier, comprehension issue etc.

Phobias

 

Thats not a comprehensive list, but it should give you an idea.

 

Dani

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties.

 

I see you are distancing yourself from your original stance and moving on to medical reasons why someone could not provide a specimen:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hi-jack but Danny are you Scottish, the strange spelling of your surname and you losing a cousin to a drink driver makes me wonder if you're related to my step-family who are Scottish and come from a village near Glasgow?

 

No worries,

No I'm not scottish - my family (on my dad's side) comes from Ireland (a couple of generations ago)- but I do have some distant scottish relatives.

 

My Dad did a lot of research into the family history and discovered that our ancestors were actually polish mercanaries, who went to fight in Ireland in the 5th/6th century (Or thereabouts - not sure, without going through his books). The name Kiernan comes from a polish/Gaelic Hybrid - which means literally 'keeper of the keys'.

 

I have been meaning to go through all of my Dads books/papers, for quite a while, but can't bear to - it's still fresh in my memory even though he died 3 years ago.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not notice, where I said Failure to Provide/Refusal to provide?

 

In post 4 of this thread you said this:-

 

'Failure to provide' is my pet hate at the moment, because it is silly.

 

No mention of refusal to provide whatsoever. Now that your opinions have been shot down in flames I see you are rowing for shore. Unfortunately for you, your original comments in post 4 are still on display for all to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention of refusal to provide whatsoever. Now that your opinions have been shot down in flames I see you are rowing for shore. Unfortunately for you, your original comments in post 4 are still on display for all to see.

 

As illustrated by a quote from post 4:

 

So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties. Surely can't the police just get a forced blood test like they do with drugs?

 

In most languages 'no' means a refusal, I don't quite get where your confusion lies?

 

Also in the form MG/DD/A, it clearly states:

 

I require you to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of an

approved device. The specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol in your

breath may be used as evidence and the other will be disregarded. I warn you

that failure to provide either of these specimens will render you liable to

prosecution. Do you agree to provide two specimens of breath for analysis?

 

This does cover refusal to provide.

 

No it's not, it's an offence. It has been for a very long time. If someone is stupid enough to fail to provide then they deserve all they get.

 

I'd love to know how you define someone as 'stupid' when they are unable to or refuse to provide a specimen, due to medical reasons, reasonable excuse etc, the list of cases where this has been proved is as follows:

 

R v Lennard, Woolman v Lenton, DPP v Boden, DPP v Judge,DPP v Daley, DPP v Curtis, DPP v Szarzynski, DPP v Crofton, DPP v Hammond, DPP v Furby, Falzarano v DPP, DPP v Lonsdale, McMahon v CPS, Martiner v DPP, DPP v Mukandiwa, Pattison v DPP, Oladimeji v DPP,Beck v Sager, McGrath v Vipas, Dawes v Taylor, Spalding v Paine, Foster v Bentley, Kemp v Chief Constable of Kent, Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v O’Brien, DPP v Fountain, Neale v DPP, Smith (Nicholas Paul) v DPP, Dickinson v DPP, DPP v Beech, DPP v Pearman, De Freitas v DPP, DPP v Brodzky, DPP v Coyle, DPP v Meller, DPP v Grundy,Grady v Pollard, DPP v Eddowes, DPP v Ambrose, DPP v Comber, DPP v Simpson (Ian William)

 

There are lots more - but that list should keep you busy for a while.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dani

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to know how you define someone as 'stupid' when they are unable to or refuse to provide a specimen,

Dani

 

Moving the goal posts again Danny.:D To save you the bother of going back to your original post in this thread, let me remind you of what you said:-

 

"So why can you saying 'no' to a breath test result in an immediate ban and possibly other penalties."

If someone says "No" to a breath test without good reason then they are stupid and deserve everything that gets thrown at them.

Now that you realise the folly of what you said in post 4 of this thread you move to attempt a damage limitation exercise, but unfortunately your credibility has already taken another knock. You can back peddle as much as you like and start to mention cases where people had medical issues for not being able to provide, but the majority will see your post above in it's proper light........................an attempt by you to save face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If some-one genuinely cannot give a breath test for "medical reasons" and they knew they were clear, surely these people would be begging the police for a blood test (which is more accurate anyway). The fact they do nothing proves guilt in my eyes.

 

I know drivers who have gone for the higher license types (HGV/LGV) while having severe alcohol dependency. Believe it or not at least one had reference to drink problems in not too distantly past medical history and the doctor gave him a clean bill of health. Just shows how little the DVLA medical goes in some circumstances.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

the list of cases where this has been proved is as follows:

 

R v Lennard, Woolman v Lenton, DPP v Boden, DPP v Judge,DPP v Daley, DPP v Curtis, DPP v Szarzynski, DPP v Crofton, DPP v Hammond, DPP v Furby, Falzarano v DPP, DPP v Lonsdale, McMahon v CPS, Martiner v DPP, DPP v Mukandiwa, Pattison v DPP, Oladimeji v DPP,Beck v Sager, McGrath v Vipas, Dawes v Taylor, Spalding v Paine, Foster v Bentley, Kemp v Chief Constable of Kent, Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset v O’Brien, DPP v Fountain, Neale v DPP, Smith (Nicholas Paul) v DPP, Dickinson v DPP, DPP v Beech, DPP v Pearman, De Freitas v DPP, DPP v Brodzky, DPP v Coyle, DPP v Meller, DPP v Grundy,Grady v Pollard, DPP v Eddowes, DPP v Ambrose, DPP v Comber, DPP v Simpson (Ian William)

 

 

Tell me Danni, did you read through all the above cases or did you just get the list from the Callow Publishing website and just cut and paste the cases? I only ask because if you go to their site:-

 

Drink Drive Case Notes by P M Callow with Lion Laboratories contents

 

And then look under Chapter 5 you will see that your list corresponds with the exact same list on the above site. I suspect that you have just put up this list without reading the actual cases to see the significance of the individual cases.

 

PS Having just read DPP v Mukandiwa, it's obvious you have just cut and pasted the above list, because if you had read this case you would have realised that when it went to appeal, the appeal court sent it back to the original court with a direction to convict.

 

I wonder how many other cases above went against the person when it went to appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6019 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...