There's a reason they have a medical history portion on DMV license forms.

What can DMV do about a person who may be unable to drive safely due to a physical or mental condition or disorder?
California law (Vehicle Code Sections 13800, 13801) permits DMV to investigate and reexamine a person's ability to safely drive a motor vehicle for a variety of reasons, including information coming to the department's attention that a person has a physical or mental disorder that may affect his or her ability to drive safely.


What types of medical conditions can affect a person's ability to drive safely?
Any disorder or condition that might interfere with the alertness, strength, physical coordination, agility, judgment, attention, knowledge, or skill necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle, is a concern to DMV.

Such conditions may be static (unchanging), such as the residual effects of a single stroke, or chronic, such as an uncontrolled seizure disorder or diabetic condition. It may be a progressive condition which gradually deteriorates over time, such as Alzheimer's disease or other form of dementia.

These are only a few examples of the many different kinds of physical or mental conditions or disorders that might cause DMV to reexamine a driver.

How does DMV find out about persons who may be unsafe to drive due to a physical or mental condition or disorder?
DMV receives information from many sources, including law enforcement, physicians and surgeons, judges, family members and acquaintances. Under the law, peace officers have the discretion to request a reexamination of any driver with whom they come in contact, if they observe or discover reasons to believe the person may be unable to drive safely. Court judges have similar discretion.

The law also requires physicians and surgeons to report to the local health officer certain conditions or disorders, and gives them discretion to report other conditions. These reports are forwarded to the DMV. DMV may consider information from any source when deciding whether to investigate or reexamine a person's driving qualifications. This includes information from a person's family members, relatives and acquaintances.

Absolutely. Safety policy should always be supported by data. "Common sense" is ridiculously subjective. If you want to make public policy based on "feelings", then it's time to let Oprah write the vehicle codes.

NON LEO here.

Distractions while driving and did someone mention seat-belts?



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1323218751.jpg

Say there Moses, you do realize that the more injuries there are in traffic collisions the more money it costs all other drivers in the from of higher insurance rates? Also, those nice ladies and gents that cut un-belted buffoons out of their cars and try to save their lives? They get paid by all of us. You know, together, with taxes. Wouldn't you rather have them ready and waiting to help you or someone you care about, than cutting some libertarian out of his or her car?

My order of driving peeves.

1) Drunks
2) Cell Phone
3) Gross polluters
4) No child seat
5) Not in a Porsche

Not a LEO, but used to drive ~50,000km annually.

People driving with their head up their rectal orifice.
This can cover a wide range of things from talking on the phone, to others in the car to just thinking about stuff other than where their two tons of steel and rubber is headed at the moment. I have been guilty of this. These days I try to drive when I'm behind the wheel.

Drivers who do things in the security of their vehicles they wouldn't dare do in a lineup. Acts which are simply rude and dangerous: cutting people off, obscene gestures, 'brake checks' unsafe overtaking on two lane roads.

Re the seat belt debate: I always wear mine, and have since the 60s. I have been in vehicles involved in extreme maneuvers on the track, in accidents and accident avoidance. I was glad for my belts every time.

I have been a responder to accidents involving people who have been ejected from their vehicle, one of which was partly caused by the driver not being belted in. Driver was leaning against the door in a right hand corner, the door opened and his attempt to stay in the vehicle by holding onto the steering wheel caused the truck to turn hard right and mount the guard rail. He ended up underneath the truck next to the rail, bruised, but alive.

I must ask though: In the US, where do hospitals get the money to treat those who cannot afford emergency treatment? Does that cost get spread out to the paying clients? In any case, there is a societal cost to looking after these folks.
(Sorry for the PARFy moment)

Best
Les

1. Children not belted in or car seats... Or being put in the front seat which has an air bag. (under 12)

2. Speeding, hooning. (reckless or dangerous driving)

3. Texting or using a phone.

That's the top three but Children being put in harms way is the biggest for me.

I could never be a cop... Too much angst but I admire the people that are on the job.

I will give some anecdotal information here. A friend of ours in his big bench seated Buick swerved to miss an animal in the road and slid over to the passenger side while still trying to hang onto the wheel which made the swerve even tighter. Ended up rolling the car in the field. I am reasonably sure that he would not have wrecked the car had he been wearing his belt. If you want to play the what if game, what if that had ben a yard with kids playing?