I have been fighting DVLA since Aptil when they revoked my licence as a result of a police report that I was unfit to drive. At the time I saw the policeman I was sat in a parked car and he admitted he nhad not seen the car in motion. I failed the field test on the day I took it because of lowish blood sugar (5.1) and i have been battling ever since. They accused me of having glaucoma, eye consultant wrote to say ii didnt, they then decided i had progressive retinopathy, they seem desparate to get thet word progressive into all their diagnosis, 3 separate health care professionals have provided me with written confirmation that I have stable retinopathy since 2007, been waiting since August for their reaction to that. However digging on line I have found a European workimng party report New Standards for the visual functions of drivers dated Brussels May 2005 that on page 11 of 35 states that the Esterman test must never be used to establish a field measurement for driving What test do the DVLA insist on using? The Esterman test, probably because its cheap.
DVLA ignoring European guidelines
- Thread starter barncooseboy
- Start Date
- Messages
- 23,618
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
- Dislikes
- Disrespectful people
Sorry but I've read your post twice and can't make sense of it, why was it that the Police filed a report, did you have a hypo at the wheel and you needed assistance or were you involved in a accident?
The DVLA do use the Esterman Test and I've had to have do this a few times myself due to diabetic retinopathy, I'd be surprised if they'd accept that a bg reading of 5.1mmol/l would result in you failing the test as 5.1 isn't a hypo and shouldn't interfere with your vision.
The DVLA do use the Esterman Test and I've had to have do this a few times myself due to diabetic retinopathy, I'd be surprised if they'd accept that a bg reading of 5.1mmol/l would result in you failing the test as 5.1 isn't a hypo and shouldn't interfere with your vision.
- Messages
- 5,186
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
- Dislikes
- Not being able to eat as many chocolate digestives as I used to.
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
I agree with the others that I'm not sure what happened and why your licence was withdrawn. (I do know that if you have a hypo you are supposed to remove the keys and move into the passenger seat)http://www.trend-uk.org/documents/Hypo leaflet V4.pdf
Re Esterman test, I did a bit of looking up and what I found doesn't support your case .
Apparently the method of testing has not been 'harmonised (as of 2008) but the Esterman test is used in many countries in Europe. EU countries have similar regulations on acceptable vision but they are allowed to be stricter (some countries are in fact stricter on some aspects, the UK is not one of these)
According to this paper, the 2005 EU Eyesight Working Group (not a guideline) did, as you say, oppose the test .However the reason that it opposed ' binocular field tests such the Esterman' was " because of the lack of fixation monitoring, fusional problems and the large, bright stimulus, all of which lead to the test being too lenient." http://www.optometry.co.uk/uploads/articles/Jan 25 08 Clinical driving.pdf
Re Esterman test, I did a bit of looking up and what I found doesn't support your case .
Apparently the method of testing has not been 'harmonised (as of 2008) but the Esterman test is used in many countries in Europe. EU countries have similar regulations on acceptable vision but they are allowed to be stricter (some countries are in fact stricter on some aspects, the UK is not one of these)
According to this paper, the 2005 EU Eyesight Working Group (not a guideline) did, as you say, oppose the test .However the reason that it opposed ' binocular field tests such the Esterman' was " because of the lack of fixation monitoring, fusional problems and the large, bright stimulus, all of which lead to the test being too lenient." http://www.optometry.co.uk/uploads/articles/Jan 25 08 Clinical driving.pdf
The copper apporoached me because he claimed to have had a phon e call reporting me as being drunk and I was driving slow, this on a road that has flats for several hundred students who are on the loose at 10 on a saturday and has 5 sets of traffic lights in less than a mile, I have been high blood sugar for years for me 5.1 is low, the students here have this secret weapon, they believe that if they cross the road looking away from the traffic, because they cant see you, you wont run them over, but they are still blocking the road with their bodies. The copper was told I hadnt had a beer for about 4 months but brought his face close to mine, he was either going to kiss me or smell my breath so I breathed out to make it easier, he then got a s itty on and stomped off 3 weeks later I got the letter from the DVLA. As to Esterman being lenient doesnt alter the fact it is considered unsuitable as a test for driving, the minutes were quite clear on that point.
The vehicle was parked, and unpowered throughout the incident, the copper arrived within 2 minutes of me parking, if you ring 101 it takes 20 minutes to be answered 999 takes a few minutes for a message to get out to a car, he was alone in the panda. he filled in the report form to DVLA which quite clearly says it is only to be used for WITNESSED events the narrative admits he hadnt seen any movement of the car and even ticked the box saying there had been an accident when there hadnt is it any wonder i am cheesed off they originally revoked on the basis i had glaucoma, eye specialist wrote confirming i dont, they then decided i had progressive retinopathy, 3 separate medical professionals have written to say i dont have that either. they have threatened prosecution for not reporting laser treatment, need for reporting came in i believe in 2012 my laser treatment was in 2002 10 years before normally laws are not retrospective
The vehicle was parked, and unpowered throughout the incident, the copper arrived within 2 minutes of me parking, if you ring 101 it takes 20 minutes to be answered 999 takes a few minutes for a message to get out to a car, he was alone in the panda. he filled in the report form to DVLA which quite clearly says it is only to be used for WITNESSED events the narrative admits he hadnt seen any movement of the car and even ticked the box saying there had been an accident when there hadnt is it any wonder i am cheesed off they originally revoked on the basis i had glaucoma, eye specialist wrote confirming i dont, they then decided i had progressive retinopathy, 3 separate medical professionals have written to say i dont have that either. they have threatened prosecution for not reporting laser treatment, need for reporting came in i believe in 2012 my laser treatment was in 2002 10 years before normally laws are not retrospective
Last edited by a moderator:
The DVLA made changes to the sight rules in 2012 http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/features/?article=3473
If you hadn't reported laser treatment in both eyes then yes you are in the doo doo as well. Your licence as well as ins was non valid.
You are also allowed to retake the field test up to 3 times I believe.
If you hadn't reported laser treatment in both eyes then yes you are in the doo doo as well. Your licence as well as ins was non valid.
You are also allowed to retake the field test up to 3 times I believe.
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
Working party reports are taken into account went EU regulations are formulated but it's ultimately not them who make the regulations .The DVLA isn't breaking any regulation and nor is France or any of the many other countries that use that test.
The DVLA has changed the threshold for the field of vision but not the requirement to report. (that is one respect where the UK was stricter in earlier years)
Here is a post about requirement to report written in 2011. The answer describing the requirement is in the 2nd post One member answering describes having to do the test every 3 years for the previous 15 years . http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/driving-license-after-laser-treatment.20404/
If you are able to do the test another time and you think your result was influenced by your 'low' glucose, then it would surely be in your interest to do it again.
The DVLA has changed the threshold for the field of vision but not the requirement to report. (that is one respect where the UK was stricter in earlier years)
Here is a post about requirement to report written in 2011. The answer describing the requirement is in the 2nd post One member answering describes having to do the test every 3 years for the previous 15 years . http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/driving-license-after-laser-treatment.20404/
If you are able to do the test another time and you think your result was influenced by your 'low' glucose, then it would surely be in your interest to do it again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Must admit to thinking there is more than one issue here because if police pull you over they do not require a visual field test.
They can ask you to read a number plate, obviously if you fail that you are expected to visit an optician and have your glasses corrected and as long as your sight is within the permitted limit. You can not have your licence taken away due to a blood sugar of 5.1 as that is def not hypo.
Now if you were at the wheel of a stationary car with the keys in the ignition and unfit to drive due to a medical episode then in the DVLA's and police eyes you are in charge of the car.
No idea where you had the field vision test but others have stated some high street opticians equipment is faulty, so look into that as well.
They can ask you to read a number plate, obviously if you fail that you are expected to visit an optician and have your glasses corrected and as long as your sight is within the permitted limit. You can not have your licence taken away due to a blood sugar of 5.1 as that is def not hypo.
Now if you were at the wheel of a stationary car with the keys in the ignition and unfit to drive due to a medical episode then in the DVLA's and police eyes you are in charge of the car.
No idea where you had the field vision test but others have stated some high street opticians equipment is faulty, so look into that as well.
I was NOT pulled over by police I was sitting in a parked car as i detailed earlier,engine switched off. the officer did not ask for either my name or any Form of I.D he did NOT ask for me to read anything let alone a number plate after smelling I had no alcohol he just stomped off to his car and then spent about 10 minutes walking in circles around his car, assumption by other police officers he was trying to talk to control via his personal radio. He did not ask me to take licence/insurance/log book to the local police station. Being thwarted in getting a nick for drunk driving he was determined to get some form of result and so reported me as being unfit, although the form quite clearly says it should only be used for officer witnessed events. Its no good the 'Expert' on here telling me I didnt have a hypo at 5.1 my HBA is normally around 9 to 9.5 I get hypo type conditions at higher levels than some other people, my eyesight on test day was **** due to what for me was low blood sugar, I hadnt had any breakfast although I had taken all my medication. Due to the worry of this case I have gone from a 46 waist to a 38 and one of the DVLA medical board has been my consultant and far from him telling me I am unfit to drive he has discharged my from his clinic to the 'care' of the GP surgery because he doesnt consider I need specialist care any more. Is it any wonder I am cheesed off, 4 separate eye professional have written over the months that I dont have the conditions that DVLA say I have, latest details and letters sent to DVLA about 5 to 6 weeks ago, I have so far not even recdeeived ackniowledgement of receipt
- Messages
- 8,934
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Other
However you look at it, clinically , according to an expert witness, you would not be considered to be in a hypo at 5.1 and while physically you might feel rubbish, technically your brain function would not be impaired at 5.1. As a result, you cannot be considered hypo.
Your eyes may not be great at a normal blood glucose level, but that is because you normally run too high and yo yo blood sugars do cause eye issues.
Your eyes may not be great at a normal blood glucose level, but that is because you normally run too high and yo yo blood sugars do cause eye issues.
At the time of my laser treatment 2002 I asked my consu,tant if I needed to report it to DVLA, he told me I didnt, just dont drive anywhere for the rest of that day. If given that advice by a medical professional you would expect his info to be accurate
Form V 1 which is used to report the condition was only issued by DVLA IN 2012, is every driver expected to contact dvla every week to find out what they have changed this week, they would need several thousand more staff to cope with that
Form V 1 which is used to report the condition was only issued by DVLA IN 2012, is every driver expected to contact dvla every week to find out what they have changed this week, they would need several thousand more staff to cope with that
