Drivers License reveals


#41

I broadly agree we all have to be responsible especially when driving. And that driving while hypo does broadly meet the definition of DUI.

But having a DUI on your record can hurt your employability or even eligibility to remain in school. These are often completely automatic penalties that result from the DUI, where your employer or school has a policy that requires them to take action, not gives them a choice to take action. And messing things up that way is a pretty easy way to end up on a downward spiral especially for a young person. I think the cops did her a big favor.


#42

I agree, that’s why I was saying they should get some kind of ticket—I don’t think that it should be a DUI. But I think there should be a ticket and also a record in terms of driving safety that may trigger something like a doctor required to sign off on license eligibility and possibly getting licenses temporarily revoked pending medical review depending on severity of the incident or if it happens more than once. And maybe a different mechanism than a DUI should be created for this purpose.


#43

I am from Maine too,that was interesting. I don’t drive . Haven’t for 27 years due to an eye problem from birth. Not DM. Nancy


#44

@cardamom, That’s not protocol. They don’t ticket. You misunderstand how the system works. Depending on state, many people ARE required to have medical certification regularly. Seeing (and paying for a Doc) is a condition of driving. My drivers license is suspended regularly due to failures in the DMV computer system that tracks this paperwork. Its nice to think that the system works or makes sense in some way, but welcome to government…its a broken system. Its not how you imagine it is.

The law is, in some ways, much easier on drunk driving than medical revocation. I know people with three DUIs who are allowed to drive. They set up a video camera and a breathalyzer in the car in order to enable/assist them with driving. That’s so they can watch them and bust them if they are drinking inside the car, while they are driving. But, they are still allowed to drive. Diabetics don’t get all those technical bells and whistles/assistive technologies. They don’t allow us to drive with a BG meter in the car. We don’t have the right to represent ourselves in court. Its a totally different set of laws/procedures governing criminal actions.

But, that should make intuitive sense, since if getting low BG was illegal, we would ALL be in jail all the time. Not that we don’t still get taken to jail for DUI/public intoxication sometimes when our BG is low. That is a very serious and dangerous event that sometimes results in loss of life.


#45

Bear in mind that within the US, laws can differ significantly from State to State.


#46

Sure, and there are many ways an event can go down and be perceived by officers on scene. But, I will NEVER stop complaining about our computer system until it stops spontaneously and regularly revoking my license. NEVER!!! LOL.

Its the worst because I live in the country. I rode my bike 1 hour yesterday to get to the train. It was 3 degrees. I ride along a sidewalk on a very busy road with fast traffic for part of the journey. Everyone left their garbage dumpsters on the sidewalk for pickup, completely blocking the sidewalk, so I got pushed within inches of passing cars.

I got mad. I kicked at one of them while passing, missed, and almost plummeted into traffic. But the second time, I kicked one so hard, that it flew an incredible distance (despite being filled with trash). It was very satisfying. I yelled, “Take that! This is how disabled I am, mother f#ckers!” I can only imagine what its like if you are in a wheelchair or elderly.

I would do it again. When I think about what I have done to help the state and what they have done to me and my people, I grimace. Its personal, now, Tim35. I’m keeping score. They definitely owe me. Some day I will come for them and I will bring a storm of hell fire upon their house such as they have never seen. (P.S. this was our war song for programming after grades were released.)


#47

There is only one way to fight and win against the State.
Run for office and win. Work from the inside without getting corrupted.


#48

I originally thought that I would be an insurance actuary and learn all their bad secrets. But, they required a confidentiality agreement that prevented me from ever speaking about that work or the calculations. Uncool. So, I am evaluating other strategies.


#49

Multiple parts of your comment don’t make sense to me, like:

If a person cannot or will not test regularly enough to prevent a severe low behind the wheel, then their diabetes is a disability that interferes with driving. Where is it a law that prevents someone from having a meter with them and pulling over to test to check if on a longer drive and treat a low if needed?

Also, I was saying in my comment that there should be a way to ticket someone for driving with a low that is different from a DUI, not that there is. And I’m obviously not saying lows should be illegal (neither should drinking alcohol for that matter), but driving with an incapacitating one absolutely should punishable in a way that also prevents a person from doing it repeatedly and killing others (not going to jail, but perhaps rather a ticket and prompting increased level of medical clearance perhaps to drive).


#50

@cardamom,

Let me explain. I do not have access to a car who’s operation depends on a valid BG reading. If such a device existed, perhaps the state would feel as confident letting diabetics drive as those with 3 DUI’s. A device like that establishes competency to the state for higher risk individuals. It provides patient advocacy in a way that a simple BG machine does not. It is an assistive technology.

I don’t think you have to worry about bunches of diabetics killing people on the roads with low blood sugar. That is simply not a problem. If your concerns are honest, they could easily start ticketing for texting. That has contributed to the most roadway deaths, of late, since the 1950’s. I’ve been hit by a lot of people who were not ticketed. None of them were diabetics with low blood sugar. Perhaps the state should be notified when you are texting while driving. As it currently works, those records are only accessed if something goes to court. But, things that go to court tend to be more ‘severe’ accidents. There are no preventative measures in place for that circumstance. You are proposing a much more severe protocol for diabetics than for other drivers.

A man on the train (with no history of being diabetic, taking no medications whatsoever, with no chronic illness) passed out last week at my feet. Do you have any proposals to keep normoglycemics from occasionally having medical events? Or, perhaps, do unforeseen events occasionally just happen and that is the nature of being a human and living in a physical body?

Lets chalk this up to differences in our perceptions/understanding of health and illness and the efficacy of the systems built to govern those definitions. We make different risk analysis. None of this will matter when we have driverless cars. Thats the purpose of driverless cars. The argument you make is the one most often made by tech companies when they say its too dangerous for anyone to drive. The state generally accepts this argument. That’s because the vast majority of accidents are caused by average people who make bad decisions, mistakes, or have unforeseen events while driving. They know that.


#51

I agree and completely support this. It’s also already illegal in some states (MA, for one).

I don’t know why you think that this kind of device is common for people with DUIs/at risk for them, but in my experience working professionally in the substance treatment field, it’s not whatsoever, even for people with multiple DUIs who get their licenses reinstated. So I don’t really see the relevance.

Also, the fact that such lows aren’t common is why i don’t think there should be any particular restrictions on diabetics getting drivers licenses unless there is an incident of someone driving with an incapacitating low. And I’m not saying that one should result in a loss of license, so much as getting a doctor to sign off or some degree of increased scrutiny (and a ticket).


#52

“I don’t know why you think that this kind of device is common for people with DUIs/at risk for them, but in my experience working professionally in the substance treatment field, it’s not whatsoever, even for people with multiple DUIs who get their licenses reinstated. So I don’t really see the relevance.” -@cardamom

It is a common technology here for reinstatement. I’m quite sure, as an industry professionally, that you have heard of this. It exists in half of all US states. Perhaps your state is behind the curve. But, its a common technology that I expect you have, at least, heard of. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-ignition-interlock-laws.aspx

I know plenty of people who drive with a history of DUI, so don’t play stupid with me. Almost all of them chronically re-offend for years - drinking and driving on a daily basis until eventually they are caught. Please be honest with me. You do a disservice to people with substance abuse issues by not being honest about the nature of that illness. I know plenty of cops, medics, veterans, and others with substance abuse issues. They are often good people who make large personal commitments to help others. Typically, the ones who get caught aren’t even the chronic ones. We all know that. So how well is your state system working? Lets lay the cards down on that. It is one of the great legacies/achievements of the substance abuse community that people be honest about the illness. It is a useful guideline that benefits not just people with other illnesses, but all people.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the gov could chase people around all day long, enforcing justice?

Over the summer a ‘normal’ person didn’t allow me to merge from the slow lane. I was pushed off the road, onto the shoulder, where he kept me until I came to a complete stop on a 50 mph road. Wouldn’t it be nice if ‘normal’ people were forced to admit to the limits in their mental health that contribute to terribly unsafe driving conditions. Unfortunately, that stuff should be addressed more often. I find that ‘normal’ people aren’t that honest or, perhaps, informed.


#53

Ok, I don’t know what you’re thinking I’m being dishonest about, but I’m done with this conversation, since I certainly have been, and you are not actually responding to the specific points I’m making/suggesting. Have a good day!


#54

Uh huh. Lay your cards out. It must be nice to walk away from a discussion whenever someone asks you to follow the law or make good on your promises. Seen this before. Of course, that’s not an option for those of us who are forced to deal with the miracle of state government - it follows no law, not even the ones that it, itself creates. Its like dealing with an octopus - always moving all its arms around, never doing anything productive. You shake a stick at it and it crawls back under its rock and wont say a word.

You may call yourself an ‘industry professional.’ But, I would expect you to be aware of common technologies available to your industry and be aware of basic lessons/philosophies derived from the experiences of that community in order to promote health. I think it reflects what government can and cannot do. “Professionals built the titanic.” Professionals built the DMV computer system. Prepare to go down with the ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl03afAqeFQ


#55

Jumping back in at the risk of double backlash…
:slight_smile:

Remember that laws and practices in the US can vary greatly from State to State. I believe under discussion are two very different areas of the Country which have the potential for significant difference in laws and practices.


#56

If medicare does not cover Dexcom, should one not be, at least, aware that Dexcoms exist? But, your point is taken. Advocacy isn’t constrained to one illness or one state. Every state employee wants to put us into a box. People from multiple illness communities have been helping me advocate for myself, of late. Drivers license issues are surprisingly common across many illness groups. They have given me some bigger picture perspective. I see them. They see me. It’s the least I can do, to advocate for them, to a member of their community.

If we are going to compare illnesses, lets at least make an honest, insightful comparison. Even/Especially the drunks have been able to rise to that. Can we raise the skills/integrity of ‘normal’ people up to that level? Perhaps it is a form of advocacy for ‘normal’ people to try and get them there. It will be no easy task. Often I wonder how they survive at all. I suppose the state gives 'em jobs to keep them off the street and the government dole. Makes practical sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLV09_FDnIQ


#57

She didn’t “get away” with anything. She had a medical emergency and didn’t deserve a ticket anymore than someone who has a heart while driving that causes an accident.


#58

@cardamom, Watch yourself about recommending that your establishment pick on a teenage girl having a medical emergency. You ‘work professionally with the substance abuse community.’ I would think that if one of us (diabetics) doesn’t come for you about that perspective, then certainly one of them (substance abuse) will. That’s not gonna be better, LOL. Warrants some rethought. Also, just for future reference, claiming to have diabetes when you get pulled over under the influence, will NOT work. They can tell the difference (most of the time) and its poor form.

To cardamom, with love. Cheers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg6BwvDcANg


#59

@mohe0001, I still really don’t the relevance of most of what you’re posting (even after you’ve gone back and edited your past threads repeatedly), especially given what I’ve actually said. I said early on that I agreed that I didn’t think this should be treated equivalently to a DUI, but also that it shouldn’t be ignored, yet you’re persisting as though I’m trying to say they are entirely parallel situations. It seems like you might be enjoying getting worked up about this though, so by all means, continue…


#60

You are certainly viewing your recent low-bg-induced accident with rose colored glasses.

I’ve never been in a hypo-caused accident myself but it is so incredibly easy to see how it could happen.

If you’re lucky it’s a slow-speed accident and all you do is scrape up a few parked cars at a couple MPH but it’s so easy for me to see how an accident at highway speeds could turn out very differently. The thought that it could be my family in the car with me, that scares the bejeezus out of me.

I have purposefully chosen an area to live in with a lot of mass transit so that I only occasionally have to drive, and chosen a job that lets me get back and forth to work without having to drive. When I do have to drive I do purposefully elevate my bg’s to make dang sure nothing is going to happen and then check all the time anyway.