• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Beginning of the End.....

It doesn't matter whether it's up or down, so long as it's equal!!

Look at the car insurance... The EU ruled it was unfair and discriminatory that women get cheaper car insurance than men and so they passed a law to make it EQUAL. This did not mean that men benefitted by their insurance going down, oh no, women were penalised because their insurance went UP, because of the RISK!

At the end of the day if there is a genuine risk to the public because of people going hypoglycaemic whilst driving then there can be no "down" because there is no way they are going to remove the restrictions if there is a risk to public safety. And that's fine. The problem is that only half of the diabetics that CAN go hypo at the wheel have to have the restrictions and that's not fair or safe!


Diagnosed with GD in 2010, Completely disappeared postpartum. Re-diagnosed December 2012 with type 1.5 diabetes, age 26, BMI 22 currently controlled by only Metformin, 500mg twice a day.
 
Andy12345 said:
for example, women dont campaigne for mens wages to go down because they arent equal they want theirs to go up, the blacks in america didnt campaigne for whites to have to sit at the back of the bus but for them to be able to sit up the front
Click to expand...
I'm lost now ! Women didn't campaign for mens wages to drop and blacks inAmerica fought for equal rights, to be able to sit anywhere on the bus. I think my views are slightly different to Elaine's in that I want to eradicate restrictions for well controlled insulin dependant diabetics. Not to make it harder for those on BG lowering meds.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
sorry elaine your wrong, it does matter up or down when your on a mission, your mission should be a positive one, the insurance companies being scumbags is neither here nor there, the insurance quotes if it was unfair should have equalised, the mens going down and the womens going up, the fact that that didnt happen isnt a valid argument, the bus thing is the same, yes the blacks and white should be able to choose of course but the whites shouldnt have to sit at the back of the bus because that would be as insane s the other way around unless its motivated by revenge for the years of opposite discrimination, someone earlier stated that they worked in the field and knew of zero cases or rtas being caused by a hypo, id be interested to hear the actual statistics but assuming their experience is typical that makes your fight ridiculous, if it is more dangerous statistically than another cause of accidents then i think you should at least know the statistics and go after the cause of the most dangerous things which without being sure id be surprised if this is it, otherwise its a its not fair exercise and im gonna make it fair by hurting others
 



yes exactly, your fight is the right fight imo
 
No, ur argument is ridiculous. The insurance companies did what they did by law because they need to assess RISK as part of their business.

It's disgusting and disgraceful to defend the fact that sulfonylurea takers pose just as much of a threat to the public as insulin users do and that they are not regulated in the same way. That is like saying if you are a heroin addict, that's ok, but if it's cocaine then that's bad! They are BOTH equally as bad and BOTH need to be regulated in the same way.

If any insulin users came on here and said they didn't care that they could go hypo and kill people behind the wheel and that they just didn't think they should have a restricted license, they would be slated and attacked for being immoral. What your doing is exactly the same and if the other poster is right about the EU already making gliclazide takers have restricted licenses in some countries then GOOD and I welcome the equality and fairness when it arrives in the UK.

I'm going to fight for my argument no matter what you think and hopefully soon the DVLA will see sense. You are wrong, in every way you are wrong. Safety and equality are paramount.


Diagnosed with GD in 2010, Completely disappeared postpartum. Re-diagnosed December 2012 with type 1.5 diabetes, age 26, BMI 22 currently controlled by only Metformin, 500mg twice a day.
 
lol ok..... im getting a sneaky feeling you think im wrong
 
https://www.icgp.ie/assets/45/245AA3F3-FC2D-9E5A-D539A64CA37A569A_document/Driving_and_diabetes.pdf
 
it shows the same rules will apply to glic as well as insulin ,I think it will be introduced into every country eventually
 
Good Shane... And so it should. I genuinely can see no feasible argument as to why two hypo-inducing medications are not both assessed and regulated in the same way I really can't. I think it is a case of the UK lagging behind as usual....


Diagnosed with GD in 2010, Completely disappeared postpartum. Re-diagnosed December 2012 with type 1.5 diabetes, age 26, BMI 22 currently controlled by only Metformin, 500mg twice a day.
 
shane-1 said:
I think you are correct ,a hypo is a hypo no matter what medication causes it
Click to expand...
Thankyou! Finally someone can see sense


Diagnosed with GD in 2010, Completely disappeared postpartum. Re-diagnosed December 2012 with type 1.5 diabetes, age 26, BMI 22 currently controlled by only Metformin, 500mg twice a day.
 
but the docs are too eager t osign medical certs ,they get paid for it , I know a guy ,hes 75 almost blind ,on insulin, and he got his licence renewed no problem ,now im not easily scared but I wouldn't be seen in the same county if hes driving on the road ,he should not have passed his eyesight test
 
i would think long and hard about any theory shane agreed with lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…