Driving with diabetes (risk of hypoglycaemia)

[UnaCorda]

I've been reading about a server at a fast-food restaurant who helped a customer who was suffering from low blood sugar and was in danger of losing consciousness. Obviously that's great that this woman was observant and knew just what to do in that situation.

However what bothers me is that this customer was in her car in the first place, potentially putting people at risk. Surely if you have a condition that means you could lose consciousness - whether it be diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, etc. - and you can't reliably control this with medication or by some other means, you don't get behind the wheel? Someone shared a story of a colleague who was killed by ending up under a truck having left work already knowing she was hypoglycaemic. Obviously a terrible thing to have happened, but this colleague could so easily have killed multiple other people not just herself.

Am I not understanding something about this situation, or AIBU?

o, absolutely not ok for either group to drive when not in a fit state. I am clearly not suggesting driving under the influence is acceptable and I don't think it's me who's being provocative and obtuse

Ah yes. I’m the one with the problem when you demand that people with diabetes have to put into place unknown who knows what measures to ensure they don’t drive. But you can’t actually say what that is. At the same time, you recognise that people make more decisions under the influence of alcohol. So how do we stop those people from driving under the influence?

I have type 1. I always carry fast acting glucose on my person and in my car. However, I'd also opt for the fast food restaurant if given a choice. It means that I get to keep the glucose because I can eat something else. Plus that I really, really hate glucose tablets.

And where on earth do type 1 people not get strips on funded prescription? This should be headline news, if true

America, where this particular incident apparently took place and where insulin rationing is a serious problem due to the cost for both insured and non insured patients.

I think you should do a little more research off your own bat OP before making sweeping accusations about various groups of people with disabilities. Your posts come across as judgmental and ill informed.

I did say, "Surely if you have a condition that means you could lose consciousness - whether it be diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, etc. - and you can't reliably control this with medication or by some other means, you don't get behind the wheel?"

I am a very well controlled type 1 diabetic. My time in range is quite high, around 85%. That means yhat 15% of the time my levels are too high or too low. That's ok, it's mostly just above or just under what it should be. But having a hypo is a regular thing. That's ok, I feel it before I lose consciousness but it sounds like you think it's easy to say which diabetics are enough controlled to not get a hypo. Diabetics who use insulin get hypo's. I'm not sure if that means that they are damgerous drivers though. I've known plenty of people who drive as idiots or after a glass of wine. Maybe those people should be educated before a diebegic who takes care of herself?

So how do we stop those people from driving under the influence?

We make it illegal. It's clearly far from perfect, but that is the system we have in place.

And I am not suggesting it should be illegal to drive with diabetes, I'm really not. I have conditions that have to be "managed", and it's a pita. But I can't really say anything else, because I don't believe you can just not follow the DVLA rules, even if they make things difficult at times. If noone is suggesting otherwise, then we're all in agreement.

For type 1 @Sotiredofthislife?! I'm sorry, that is awful. I've never had any restrictions put in my access to testing and can't believe how short sighted that is. Who can get by on less than tests per day. Awful.

I think people saying typos happen for no reason, are unpredictable etc, are
suggesting that following basic driving safety is hard/too hard.

I still stand by that no-one should drive if they can't adhere to the requirements, plus other common sense actions. But really crap to hear about such restrictions on test strips. I guess stealth privatisation.

typos = hypos, ironically.

@SylvanianFrenemies I think you may have skim-read my post as I definitely didn't say people shouldn't be blamed for driving while hypo, I said the opposite, that it wasn't excusable. And I didn't say that people didn't get strips on prescription, just that they might not get enough if they are without hypo-awareness. A lot can happen in 2 hours and even with CGM, it might not be accurate enough to pick up the low. No one is saying it's ok, just that it might happen without malice.

I feel pretty confident in general that most diabetics obey the rules though because of the terrible worry of harming others while behind the wheel. There's always a lot of discussion of this on diabetes forums and it's always mentioned at appointments I go to. And at least we can accurately check suitability for driving with our meters unlike e.g. driving after alcohol.

I am a type 1 diabetic. I have no problem with being called a diabetic as opposed to a person with diabetes, I will answer to both. I notice that a lot of people on this thread are saying that type 1 diabetes is a disability. I thought the jury was still out on that one. Lots of type 1's view themselves as having a health condition rather than a disability. Apart from that I agree with what @SylvanianFrenemies said. Personally, i never go anywhere without glucose, driving or not.

I get that @ArkAtEee - there was someone just upthread from you who appeared to be saying thst, though

I think you should do a little more research off your own bat OP before making sweeping accusations about various groups of people with disabilities. Your posts come across as judgmental and ill informed.

I have done some research and have not claimed to be an expert. However @SylvanianFrenemies has summed up precisely what I have been trying to say, and she is a diabetes sufferer, so I can't be completely wide of the mark.

I maybe didn't give enough info, but in one case the woman asked to leave work early as she was suffering from low blood sugar. She then got into her car and drove home.

In your first post you said it was dropping, now you say it was too low. Which is it? Because some diabetics wear CGM's and can see when they drop too quickly. That doesn't mean that they are low, not yet, and it gives them time to take care of themselves. Like today I was too high after I miscalculated lunch, I corrected and rode my bicycle. However, the wind was quite fierce so I started dropping really quickly. I wasn't actually low till an hour later.

I still stand by that no-one should drive if they can't adhere to the requirements, plus other common sense actions.

And that is honestly all I was trying to say, too. Apologies if it wasn't clear or came over as a more sweeping statement.

However SylvanianFrenemies has summed up precisely what I have been trying to say, and she is a diabetes sufferer, so I can't be completely wide of the mark.

But what you were "trying" to say isn't what you did say.

I think you need to choose your words more carefully before making offensive generalisations about an entire group of people.

If I'm judgemental for thinking that someone shouldn't put their desire to get from A to B before the safety of other law-abiding road users, then so be it.

The problem with that, though, is that EVERY driver desiring to get from A to B poses a risk to other road-users, whether doing so legally or not. If we took away everybody's driving licence, we'd have no road accidents at all and no road deaths.

Everything is a risk - we just have to do as much as we practically can to minimise that risk.

I notice that a lot of people on this thread are saying that type 1 diabetes is a disability. I thought the jury was still out on that one. Lots of type 1's view themselves as having a health condition rather than a disability.

It's definitely a disability, albeit (usually) a hidden one. Do you have the ability to go about your life without ever testing your glucose, risking hypos, having to inject insulin several times every day and risking long-term complications - things that healthy, able-bodied people never have to spend a moment thinking about?

If your legs or eyes don't work, nobody would suggest that you aren't disabled; why should your pancreas (and potentially, longer term, things like your neural system and kidneys) be any different?

“If you don't tell DVLA about a notifiable medical condition, you risk a £1000 fine...

Medical licences are granted, with regular contact with the individuals GP's and consultants.”

Yes but let’s be honest such rules are very poorly monitored and enforced.

We need much more strict regulation on this.

As a weegie I’m minded of the accident a few years back where a man driving a bin truck killed 6 in George square, he had not honestly reported his health issues. He escaped prosecution 😡 but had his licence taken on medical grounds - then months after the investigation was concluded he was caught driving!

It IS just as irresponsible as drunk driving in my opinion.

I’ve not driven for several years because I was on meds that you’re told to “assess” whether you think you’re safe to drive or not - I wouldn’t even take the risk.

On another thread recently a poster working with people registered blind noted many of them were turning up to where she was providing tools and education on coping with their blindness having driven there! They said they could only identify letters of the alphabet if one letter at a time full computer screen sized! But I don’t think I got a reply when I asked if she’d reported them to dvla.

Much more needs to be done to stop banned drivers from driving too - personally I’d make it an offence to make a vehicle available to a banned driver - whether by selling, leasing or lending. And where possible (as in if they are the sole owner/driver) take their cars off them.

Just saying that not all type 1's regard themselves as having a disability.
It's maybe people who have been type 1 for a long time rather than those more recently diagnosed. When i was diagnosed 24 years ago the prevailing feeling was that it was a health condition rather than a disability.

I did say, "Surely if you have a condition that means you could lose consciousness - whether it be diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, etc. - and you can't reliably control this with medication or by some other means, you don't get behind the wheel?"

Even well controlled conditions can suddenly cause issues. Same as you could be perfectly healthy, driving along and suddenly suffer a heart attack/stroke.

When i was diagnosed 24 years ago the prevailing feeling was that it was a health condition rather than a disability.

You are protected under the equality act as a person with a disability if you have type 1 diabetes.

I'm also type 1 24 years, and happily refer to it as a disability. A generally invisible one although not always.

I absolutely do not have a disability. A chronic illness yes but not a disability.

Type one is legally a disability in that you are protected under the Equalities Act 2010. Whether you choose to define yourself as having a disability or not is up to you.

Awesome time in range @Besidesthepoint. That's the nub of the point. People with type one diabetes experience varying degrees of low blood glucose a lot. It's not about being "poorly controlled". We can't ban 400,000 people in the UK from driving.

The woman in question pulled over to get carbohydrate because she was going low. We can't know if she tested as per the DVLA guidelines (I don't even know what the guidelines are in the US).

I've been in an accident caused by a type 1 diabetic having a hypo. They hadn't followed the requirements wrt testing blood before getting in the car. It happens. Most people with diabetes are responsible. Some aren't. There's no need for the responsible drivers to get defensive on behalf of the irresponsible few.

It IS dangerous to drive whilst having a hypo. Some diabetics disregard this and take risks. It's scary and shouldn't happen. I agree with you OP.

There's no need for the responsible drivers to get defensive on behalf of the irresponsible few

But the OP suggested that people with diabetes shouldn't drive as a result of a clear misunderstanding of the condition itself. That is, that no matter how well controlled or how responsible people are, a hypo can happen out of the blue. Same as someone with a heart condition can take their medication but still have a heart attack when driving. I think what she wants is for there to be some kind of legal comeback - as with drink driving - should a person with diabetes be found to have been driving whilst hypo. The problem with that is the nature of the beast is such that a) hypos happen (dramatic drops/increases in readings can happen minutes a part) and b) risky, difficult behaviour is a symptom of a hypo anyway so where could a line be drawn from a legal perspective?

You accept the risk every time you get in a car that someone, somewhere might be driving in less than ideal conditions and that their recklessness may well have an impact on you. It's clearly not right but picking on people with diabetes as a group isn't particularly helpful when there are all sorts of illness and conditions that impact on a person's ability to drive, many of which are unknown to the individuals concerned. At least diabetes has the restrictions with the DVLA and is mainly controllable with medical support and a bit of determination.