Grieving mum's victory: Cassie's Law ban on drivers who fail eye tests

Bob is absolutely right. DVLA loses our letters and they have no shame in sending out life destroying ones, usually 2nd class to the public, when such letters are of the utmost importance to how we live our lives; ie: on 01/02/13 we recieve a letter from DVLA saying you did not reply to our letter of December so as of 01/02/13 your licence is revoked. It does not account for a humane world where it is the Christmas rush maybe the letter can get lost, as the one sent to me did. For an extra cost of 0.50p and a few photo-copies that would have taken in sending a reminder to me; never mind that in this case they are dealing with a disabled, hard working (full-time) individual. When DVLA expect its rigid rules to be adhered to by the motorists so should we not expect simple dillegence from them when they are dealing with our enquiries? This should be the norm but they seem to make-up the way these laws are implemented as they go along; sending a reminder to motorists for a Medical Inquiry that they require to get on with their jobs, is too much trouble for them and yet a disabled person is expected to get on with it when their licence is revoked so cruelly. For those of us who strive to be upright motorists at all times we expect the same from DVLA. Cassies Law was needed but DVLA, who can act and should act with the utmost concienciousness does not, it acts ruthlessly with little regard for our prosperity and destroys peoples freedoms with the click of its fingers. Since DVLA is run by a private firm should they be given such ruthless powers and who can we complain to without it costing us an arm and a leg? DVLA needs to be accountable for its thoughtless actions and for a change, compensate us for the distruptions it causes to our lives. So thank you Bob you are absolutely right, DVLA has been given too much power, and this law should have gone through rigorous checks before being put through. It is a sad state of British authorities when it seems that revenue generation is the goal under the pretext of Cassies tragedy, as a new Licence automatically costs £50.00.

My Grandad gave up his license 2 years ago aged 82 after failing an eye test but not without a lot of persuasion from myself and other family members, its very difficult for someone to admit they aren't up to the task anymore but he was becoming a danger to himself and other drivers...the roads are busier, everything happens much quicker and even without his failing sight his age meant his reaction time to what was going on around him was just a bit too slow to be safe anymore...personally I believe it's absolutely right to be able to revoke a license instantly in cases like this, being able to drive is not a given right regardless of age....

I’m not in disagreement with many of the comments on here, apropos age related eye tests etc, but let’s get the facts straight.

Statisically, per mile traveled, fatal crash rates increase starting at age 75 and increase over the age of 80.

Note, however, this is largely due to increased susceptibility to injury and medical complications among older drivers, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.

Ergo, if we are into the blame game, I would be in favour of legislation to re-test all drivers involved in major accidents, old and young alike.

To be 'lawful' all legislation must comply with the Law, and all legislation must be fully debated in Parliament, with full records of those debates (Hansard) so that the clear INTENT of Parliament with the legislation, can be determined - otherwise you end up with Courts making it up as they go along and being another expression of "The Law is what we say it is".
Under the EU, Statutory Instruments aren't even debated in Parliament, and they are being tacked on to existing legislation.
So apart from the Statutory Instruments being illegal and void, the existing legislation they are being tracked onto is being made illegal and void as well.
We've had a heck of a lot of our Law, Constitution and processes concealed from us, haven't we?

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom." John Locke

Also there\'s something people could do with grasping, under the Rule of Law. Legislation is not \'Law\'. It can be \'lawful\', but if it isn\'t, it is illegal and void.
Law making is the exercise of power, and power is denied to our representatives under our balanced Republic (which is what the Constitutional Monarchy is), because you always end up with a factional catfight and power grab, and the unavoidable, inevitable, catastrophic failure, that is a lawless State (which has never worked, anywhere, anywhere, in the history of human beings) where \"The Law is what we say it is\". Which is proven abomination, lie, and tyranny of \"Divine Right of Kings\", or \"Divine Right of the State\", or \"Divine Right of The Party\", or \"Divine Right of The Mob\", or whatever.
The philosopher John Locke proved the abomination, lie, and tyranny of \"Divine Right of Kings\", and proved the truth of \"If the Law makes the King, then the King is subject to the Law\", inventing the Scientific Method - Empiricism - to do it. He also, along with King William, gave us our Bill of Rights and our balanced Republic, with an independent Judiciary, a Jury of our Peers (the final COnstitutional arbiters), and ALL under the Rule of Law, where power is kept in safe custody, to keep it out of the reach of those who would seize it. Which is why the Rule of Law, is literal. In all the history of humanity, it is th eonly thing that has ever worked, and it is why so many of our forebears spilled so much of their blood defending it.

Still happy with the likes of the DVLA being able to say \"The Law is what we say it is\"?

Careful what you wish for - you just might get it. The Road to Hell really is paved with good intentions.

Let\'s face it, the whole system is open to abuse. There are people of various ages and nationalities on our roads who are unfit to drive, including teenagers, elderly, foreign drivers without a proper license, middle of the road drivers, people without insurance etc. etc. We need a radical overhaul and we need to start taking away peoples\' cars instead of just their license. There also needs to be proper prosecutions with everyone who kills (accidentally or otherwsise) being sentenced.

I think we should all have to pass a driving test every 3 years or so with an eye test at the same time. Yes it would be a hassle but there are so many dithery, unsafe drivers on the road, not all elderly, and it might weed some of them out! I do feel for the elderly who are often isolated and sometimes with poor access to public transport, and can understand why they would hate to give up driving, but if you know you're dangerous you have to face up to it!

Actually this is quite a dangerous and even Constitutionally illegal precedent. It\'s the sort of thing that always ends up being grossly abused, sad to say.
The DVLA are not a Court of Law. This is an expression of \"The Law is what we say it is\", and the very definition of a lawless State.
The inevitable abuses are why the following is in our Bill of Rights:
\"That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.\"
Yes that does mean that thinsg liek on the spot fines, wheel clamping, etc., are completely illegal,. and our Police, Judiciary, etc., are supposed to know this and NOT allow it to happen. As Magna Carta states:
\"We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.\"
Yes it was in Magna Carta because we have had this sort of nonsense in the past not just once, but many times, and it never ends well (for those trying to impose a lawless State on us).
Forget the lessons of history, and we are condemned to relearn them, is all too true, sad to say.

Driving is a privilege and not a right. It is about time that this country took this more seriously and introduced a periodic re-test (including a reaction-speed test and eye test) for ALL drivers on a 5 yearly basis.

This should be made more frequent when you reach 70.

my father-in-law reached 70 and had to renew his licence and he informed DVLA that he had Glaucoma in left eye. He had to sit a special \"field test\" at local hospital eye clinic and they discovered his sight was not at a level at which he could be allowed to drive and his licence was revoked.bythe DVLA. Whilst sad and upset he could no longer drive he was pleased that it had been found before he caused an accident which, as he said, he would have never forgiven himself for