INJECTION OF
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CO ONSENSE
Diabetic truck drivers not only have to deal with a serious medical condition on a daily basis—they are having to jump through hoops in order to keep their licences, and their livelihoods. Many observers feel that what should be a straightforward medical decision is being clouded by prejudice and red tape.
The tale of recent changes to the licence regulations governing diabetic drivers contain all the elements of a romantic thriller: lost liberties, vain promises and dashed hopes. The problem is that these changes are not fictional—and they're wrecking drivers' lives.
It was bad enough when, in i99r, insulindependent drivers of large goods vehicles were told they could no longer renew their C licences after they had expired. While some undoubtedly lost their jobs, many switched to driving vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes on their Ci entitlement. The real kick in the teeth came in January of last year when the Government adopted the second EC Driving Licence Directive to bring us into line with the rest of Europe.
This regulation meant that the stringent safety standards which had precluded diabetic HGV drivers from driving 38-tonners since 1991 were extended to drivers of mediumsized trucks. In a blanket ban, insulin-dependent drivers can no longer reapply for Ci entitlement renewal when their existing three-year licences expire. The Government's view is that these drivers could suffer hypoglycaemia (loss of consciousness) which could lead to a collapse at the wheel.
Not surprisingly, this decision caused outrage in the industry. Commercial Motor was inundated with calls from desperate drivers pleading for help in keeping their jobs.
After much coverage of the issue and campaigning by CM, the Drivers Action Movement (DAM), the British Diabetic Association and lobbying from MPs, the Government backed down and announced a review of its decision last summer. This was duly followed in September by a reversal of the ban for CI drivers—but only on certain conditions. And there's the rub.
These conditions and the procedure required to meet them are slammed by the industry as unrealistic, confusing and unjust. "Diabetic drivers will not get their licences back as quickly as we were led to believe due to the unrealistic, unreasonable and downright awkward bureaucracy involved," says Richard Fry of Framptons International.
Emergencies
As transport and operations manager of the Frome, Somerset-based international haulier, Fry is largely office-bound but was occasionally called on to drive a vehicle in emergencies. Under these circumstances he is certain he won't be able to meet the proof of driving criteria ("point 3") of four hours a day on three days out of seven for a period of time amounting to at least La months over a two-year period.
Driving is not vital for his job, but Fry also drives the 7.5-tonner which his company donated to the local Kilmerston Village Day Association—and the charity will certainly miss his services.
Consequently, 40-year old Fry is feeling victimised and discriminated against. He earned his HGV licence at the age of 17 under the Crown exemption given to the army, but his driving days ended through no fault of his own in January last year when he lost his Clicence entitlement.
While he understands the safety arguments, he would like each case to be judged on its merits by the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, as is the case with applications from drivers who have suffered heart attacks. "I think I'm safe to drive," he says. "I can drive my car for as long as I want—I drove it to Scotland recently. Yes, I'm definitely discriminated against."
The mound of paperwork required by the DVLA is confusing and off-putting, he adds. "It's an awful lot of bureaucracy. It certainly put me off. It's time and expense, and why should I incur it?" he asks.
Fry's case is by no means exceptional. He knows of a driver from a local firm who recently lost his job because of the ban. The DVLA has sent letters to around 45,000 insulin-dependent diabetics who have already lost, or are about to apply for Ci entitlement. DAM secretary Jack Crossfield has 20 members affected by the ban, 15 of whom have already lost their jobs. He estimates 1,500 diabetic drivers have lost the right to earn a living.
Crossfield played a major role in getting the Government to change its mind and reverse the ban on diabetic CI licence holders. However, his struggle is far from over because the Government did not go far enough. He simply wants the Directive to be implemented as written.
The Directive says that licences may be issued to insulin-dependent drivers as long as such applications are supported by medical opinion and the drivers concerned have regular medicals. "If it's a medical issue then peo
pie should have the right to prove they are medically fit to drive," says Crossfield.
He is also concerned that not all countries have implemented the Directive. Some, notably Denmark, are allowing diabetic drivers to drive not only in their own countries, but in the UK as well. "It's unjust if it's not implemented throughout Europe affecting all diabetic drivers," he says.
Such criticism is rejected by the DVLA, which says the concession to allow insulindependent diabetics CI entitlement is confined to drivers whose jobs have recently exposed them to regular driving and who have not had hypoglycaemic attacks. "A less rigorous requirement increases the risk of licensing a driver who has not recently had to deal with such exposure and who might therefore represent an unacceptable danger if asked to undertake a long demanding work schedule," it says.
Crossfield is unimpressed. He describes the new criteria as "a kick in the teeth to those drivers whose hopes were raised when the blanket ban was overturned. I can understand if it was a safety measure," he adds, "but it's not. The driving time requirement (Point 3 in box left) doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean they're medically fit." is by NW/Clarke