I am usually good with checking no on the physical part, however the mental part?? Now I may be lying when I answer no on that. Lets face it, my metal state is subject to interpretation but never explanation.
rick phillips
I know in some states you have to either retest or go to reapplyh to renew but in CT we just renew by mail, no questions asked, just send money.
Like a few other posters, I live in Minnesota. The question is very specific about diabetes and I do believe that if I answered “NO”, I would be fraudulent and probably considered to have an invalid license.
One Minnesota poster mentioned having to have the form filled out every year. That is not correct unless your doctor has checked the box on the form to have it done annually. My doctor checks the box for the maximum allowable time between re-checks. I think it is 3 years.
It is a very easy process with my current endo. I fill out the form, fax it to her, she fills out her part of the form and faxes it to the DMV.
I have mixed feelings about the requirement to divulge this info. On one hand, any one who is on insulin is at risk for a hypo. Just because you’re well-controlled and always test before driving doesn’t mean that you can’t have a hypo come out of no-where. On the other hand, that’s the weakness of this stupid requirement. Just because my doctor fills out a form every 3-4 years, that doesn’t mean that I’m not ever going to have a hypo while driving.
Every time that there is a well-publicized accident with “diabetes” as the cause (or excuse), I worry about further restrictions on our driving. In my 33+ years of diabetes, I have never had an accident or anything like that due to diabetes. But I have gone hypo while driving and I know that I am very lucky to have never had an incident. With my more modern diabetes tools (pump, CGMS), my incidence of hypos has gone way down compared to the past. But I do consider my diabetes as a risk for safe driving. So is my cell phone. So is my radio. So is my dog.
Very well said. In my 55 years of D I have gone hypo while driving but have always pulled over and got a fast acting carb. I always sit on the side of the road for a while - until I feel I am safe to drive. I was driving way before any sort of BG testing was available. I never considered myself “at risk” and I never have had an accident due to “hypo”.
S
i’ve never heard of this. i guess i checked no because i don’t have any physical or mental conditions, i can do what others can do and i still have most of my brain so why would i check yes?? i carry a juicy juice with me so if i go low while driving i just drink that (luckly i feel lows early). a low seems to make me focus even more on driving because i don’t want to cause an accident or get pulled over. this has never happened but if i would feel bad enough i could drive, i’d pull over immediately.
i’ve been T1 for 50 years and have had my driver’s license for 34 years (in seven states). I have never disclosed I’m diabetic and i’ve never considered myself an at risk'' driver. my control is great; i've never been in an accident. so ... i can honestly answerno’’ to any question relating to my driving.
plus … i assume insurance companies have access to dmv info so if you answer yes it could trigger higher rates.
as far as disclosure … you’re covered. i don’t wear medic alert but i have a card in my wallet (i think; i never check) and even the most clueless emt should be able to recognize my pump.
In Germany you will need a doctor to certify that you are capable to handle your diabetic health condition. This certification has to be renewed every year if you own the older driver’s license (allows small trucks up to 7,5t). It is inconvenient and I pretty much dislike it but it makes sense:
a) most country roads will allow 100 km/h and then there is the Autobahn ø of course. People driving there should know what they are doing.
b) every illness that will interfere with your capability to drive can lead to the revocation of the driver’s license. So it is a fair deal.
c) it raises awareness: so we test before driving and can proof that we have behaved resposibly in our diabetes care.
d) insurance coverage could be denied or reduced if D has been concealed. Actually I have not heard of any legal case but it is still a risk.
No…
I think also how much the system freaks out is dependent on the state… Back in Highschool to take behind the wheel the school made me get a letter from my Doctor, but at the dmv the answer was defiantly NO…
Yea, some folks have had low blood sugar and gotten into trouble… Lots more have been texting, talking on the phone or plain old asleep at the wheel and gotten into trouble… So, it seams like they have bigger fish to fry than us…
Ivan!
Yes, yes yes. There is a statement at the bottom of the license application where I swear under penalty perjury ($10,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment) where the information I’ve provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am legally and morally obligated to be truthful, and when the application asks if I have any medical condition INCLUDING DIABETES then I must answer YES. Further, if at some point the state, my insurer or another party where to learn that I’d knowingly lied on the form then I will be exposed to all sorts of bad things. What if I had an accident - regardless of whether or not DM had anything to do with it - and this lie were uncovered? My insurer might not cover it, I could get sued, go to jail, etc. Is it worth it to risk all of that out of pride? Nope. How about risking bankruptcy and imprisonment? Nope again.
Anybody who lies about this is stupid, selfish and reckless in the extreme.
I couldn’t resist the urge to answer this because it seems you are calling me and many others here "stupid, selfish and reckless in the extreme."
I think what the questions has boiled down to is this: is that question (initially mentioned) pertinent to diabetics?
In other words the questions is asking if I have any physical condition that impairs me from driving safely. Diabetes doesn’t impair me. A complication of it can but the condition itself does not. I know it seems like a matter of semantics, but with regards to the law it’s always about semantics. If it weren’t then 90% of the people on the road would have to answer yes because they suffer from road rage, stupidity, lack of intellect, lack of proper judgment, etc.
I’d write more but I’m out of time.
I’m not a lawyer, but one thing I learned in several of the law courses I took as an undergrad is a concept called the “reasonable person rule.” It is an idea that asks what would a REASONABLE person in a similar circumstance do. From the cases we studied, never did a person looking for what they may have thought to be an “out” in complying with a law or contract have a successful defense by over-rationalizing or twisting the language or intent of the terms of the requirement at issue. This is particularly true if the purpose is to evade compliance with the terms of the law or contract. You might think that diabetes is not an impairment, but hypoglycemia is, but that the medical limitation question on the drivers license application only asked about diabetes and not diabetes complications. A juror or insurer might not split that hair at all, or if they did, in the same way you did. The reasonable person rule would say that you were either negligent, or at worst had committed fraud. In other words, the person who rationalized their answer this way simply lied.
Simply stated, I’m not willing to lie. It might be a pain in the neck for me to comply, and I might take more care to ensure that I am safe to drive by frequently checking my glucose and having a source of glucose handy due to my diabetes. But that does not justify allowing me to knowingly lie about my health status.
Thanks for adding a provocative discussion. After reading many of the replies, I am surprised and disturbed by the approach that many of us with diabetes are taking to this important issue. And no, I’m not casting aspersions on diabetics, but rather on diabetics who place their own convenience and self centered interest ahead of the safety of others.
This is probably going completely off topic, but based on what you said about the “reasonable person law” wouldn’t the same apply to all those ridiculous lawsuits that have become a joke over the years. For example: Wouldn’t a reasonable person know to be careful with hot McDonalds coffee, or a person with a power drill know not use it to scratch the inside of his nose, or another person with a lawnmower know not to use it to trim his bushes? The examples of this are endless and in each case the plaintiff won, which is why we have all those silly warnings on our products now. It seems that the vast majority of jurors and judges have never heard of the "reasonable person law."
But I going back to the topic at hand. What I wrote earlier about diabetic complications being the problem not the condition itself I think also applies to the human condition in general. Simply by being human you are not impaired from operating a motor vehicle, but the daily side effects of it are.
For example: let’s imagine for a moment I’m not diabetic. So when I answered “no” I was not committing perjury. However, I woke up this morning with a severe head cold (stuffy nose, headache, watery eyes etc). This head cold is impairing me from properly handling a motor vehicle. Therefore, on this day I would be committing perjury based on my signature if I went driving. I wouldn’t answer “yes” because I am human, but the side effects of that condition would require me to do so.
Hey do whatever your conscience can live with. I just hope that nothing bad happens to you - or to other innocent motorists.
"do you have any physical conditions . . . " is an open-ended question and the answer is subjective so I think we’re justified in answering ‘no’. The question is going to vary from state to state. If it’s a direct question - “do you have diabetes?” I’d say you ought to answer truthfully. What’s the worst that could happen if youlie and someone fined out? You might get your license suspended for awhile if it’s discovered you answered untruthfully and you might have to go through some extra steps to renew it every year.
I think the state is perfectly justified in asking drivers if they have diabetes or Type 1 diabetes. It’s unquestioned that Type 1 diabetics have a greater risk of being impaired than people that don’t have Type 1. Is it statistically significant? I don’t know. But it’s a known risk, and a risk you are aware of at the time you apply for or renew your license.
So, my view is if you’re asked a direct question, give a direct and truthful answer. If you’re asked a vague question, give a vauge answer.
Terry
Just on a ‘by the way’ basis - The power drill and lawnmower examples are both urban legends. (See snopes.com.) The McDonald’s Coffee case also involves the ‘reasonable person standard’ as applied to McDonald’s which served coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns. Scalding coffee - reasonable. Thrid degree burns - not. Besides, the lady in question was found to be partly responsible for her own injuries.
I don’t think it would be perjury to answer ‘no’ to the question when you have a severe head cold. It’s pretty clear that the question is asking about long-term, chronic or permanent conditions. If you were at the counter and asked the clerk if you should answer ‘yes’ because you have a cold that day, she’d give you a funny look and tell you it doesn’t apply to a head cold. She would then talk about you to her co-workers the rest of the day.
I’m just sayin’
Terry
You and me both:)
So, in your state, they ask if you have diabetes on the forms? I will have to double check our state…but, I am pretty certain they do not ask this…or I would have noticed. I agree, if it says “diabetes” then we have to answer “yes”. If the question is “impairment” to safe driving…I would think all kinds of folks could be held accountable post terrible accidents…thinking cardiac patients, neurological patients, migraine sufferers, young males. My point is that the list needs to be comprehensive if the only way to keep drivers safe is to regulate. I agree that hypoglycemic unawareness is a risk for safely doing anything…just seems that the risk is really never completely reduced, no matter how much we hope it is w/ legislation. There may be a place for physician initiated restrictions for patients w/ known hypoglycemic unawareness…just like there already are for seizure patients…, but think of the effect on T1’s over the lifespan. I think looking at supportive technology may be a better answer…on-board systems that alert the driver to dropping BG, etc. Just some thoughts…somewhat off topic:)
They are. The same goes for me and my previous '87 Chevy Nova to my current '07 Hyundai Elantra. Now, when I get a new car, I ding it myself (just a small scratch) so that I stop stressing about it. I park far away now because I enjoy the walk.
That sounds like an equitable balance between the privilege of driving the the right of society to be reasonably safe. When I lived in Germany, it was made quite clear that driving is viewed as a privilege, while in America is is almost assumed to be a fundamental right. Perhaps that explains why Americans take umbrage with the perception that they can be discriminated against when it comes to the privilege of driving.
Now you guys got me thinking… have i ever even SEEN that question? Where would I find that? Is it on my license somewhere? Or on the application? where can I find the agreement to see whether or not my state has that restriction even in question?