13.07.2015 Views

2010 BC Guide in Determining Fitness to Drive

2010 BC Guide in Determining Fitness to Drive

2010 BC Guide in Determining Fitness to Drive

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3.2 Risk managementPublic safety is the primary consideration when mak<strong>in</strong>g driver fitnessdeterm<strong>in</strong>ations, but a degree of risk <strong>to</strong> public safety may be <strong>to</strong>lerated <strong>in</strong>order <strong>to</strong> allow a broad range of people <strong>to</strong> drive.While public safety is the primary consideration <strong>in</strong> driver fitnessdeterm<strong>in</strong>ations, it is not the only consideration. In Grismer, the SupremeCourt of Canada <strong>in</strong>dicated that people with some level of functionalimpairment may have a licence because society can <strong>to</strong>lerate a degree ofrisk <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong> permit a wide range of people <strong>to</strong> drive. In its decision, thecourt states:“Strik<strong>in</strong>g a balance between the need for people <strong>to</strong> be licensed <strong>to</strong> driveand the need for safety of the public on the roads, [the Super<strong>in</strong>tendent]adopted a standard that <strong>to</strong>lerated a moderate degree of risk. TheSuper<strong>in</strong>tendent did not aim for perfection, nor for absolute safety. TheSuper<strong>in</strong>tendent rather accepted that a degree of disability and theassociated <strong>in</strong>creased risk <strong>to</strong> highway safety is a necessary trade-off forthe policy objectives of permitt<strong>in</strong>g a wide range of people <strong>to</strong> drive andnot discrim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st the disabled. The goal was not absolutesafety, but reasonable safety.” [para. 27] [emphasis added]To achieve this balance between road safety and an <strong>in</strong>dividual’s need <strong>to</strong>drive, OSMV applies a risk management approach <strong>to</strong> driver fitnessdeterm<strong>in</strong>ations. This means that, when mak<strong>in</strong>g a driver fitnessdeterm<strong>in</strong>ation, OSMV considers the degree of risk presented by an<strong>in</strong>dividual driver. If OSMV’s analysis <strong>in</strong>dicates a high degree of risk, the<strong>in</strong>dividual is not fit <strong>to</strong> drive.How does OSMV determ<strong>in</strong>e the degree of risk presented by an <strong>in</strong>dividualdriver?Risk is often def<strong>in</strong>ed as a formula; that is, risk is the likelihood of anuncerta<strong>in</strong> event multiplied by the consequence if the event were <strong>to</strong> takeplace. This means that a highly likely event with serious consequences isa greater risk than an unlikely event with m<strong>in</strong>or consequences.Unfortunately, there are no reliable formulas <strong>to</strong> calculate risk as it relates<strong>to</strong> fitness <strong>to</strong> drive. The impact of a medical condition may be specific <strong>to</strong>an <strong>in</strong>dividual and the ability <strong>to</strong> compensate for the medical condition mayalso vary by <strong>in</strong>dividual. As well, because the driv<strong>in</strong>g environment iscomplex and cont<strong>in</strong>uously chang<strong>in</strong>g, it is difficult <strong>to</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>e exactlywhat level of impairment means a person is not fit <strong>to</strong> drive.16

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!