Others are softer- “After 3-4 weeks you can return to driving once you have full confidence.” But the website of the surgeon who did my operation says “You should avoid driving for 2-3 weeks” So, it depends on how you feel and 4 weeks after the op, I’m back behind the wheel.
There’s a common sense position here. The wound is still healing. The prosthesis is still at risk. There’s still pain, driving any long distance is just not smart, and you don’t need to push it.
In this context, NZTA has just landed the draft review of “Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive - A Guide for Health Professionals” and given us until September 26 for submissions. It’s a little ironic that this review has been five years in the making and we get five weeks to submit on it.
That said though, most of the 105-page document is about strictly medical events and conditions which we almost absolutely rely on the medical profession to make judgments about. It’s the four-page section 10, entitled “Increasing Age”, which has many older drivers getting grumpy about the collective ability of their GPs to make a judgment about their fitness to drive.
It’s worth noting that age 75 is the first time that older drivers are confronted with the question of their fitness to drive.
That is well past the age that most have retired from work. It’s a reasonable expectation that the fully employed pre-65-year-olds, who are writing such reviews and considering submissions, have never experienced the terror and anxiety that their driving independence might be compromised by someone who also has no experience of living past age 75.
One organisation which looks out for the interests of older people is Greypower. In this context, I turned to an old university colleague, David Marshall, who just happens to be national vice-president of Greypower NZ, for advice. Greypower’s issues are as follows:
1. Inconsistency amongst GPs nationwide in assessing seniors for licence renewal
2. Arbitrary compulsory requirement for a cognitive test to be passed which is implemented by some GPs and practices. This is an ageist issue as we wonder if young applicants for driver licences could pass such memory and cognitive tests.
3. The proven poor predictability of cognitive tests to predict driver competence.
4. The lack of adequate training in the administration and implementation of such cognitive tests.
5. The shortage of qualified on-road assessors, meaning long delays for those challenging their cognitive tests.
6. The cost of referral to occupational therapists ($800-$1300) and their availability, for those failing cognitive tests
7. The stress and uncertainty and relationship risk when visiting their GP, for fear of what failing a cognitive test might mean for their independence, and that test giving a false indication of their driving competence.”
No one is disputing that unsafe drivers, whether they are post-75 or not, should not be on the road.
The issue though, is that senior drivers should not be unjustifiably targeted as to their cognitive and memory ability relative to their driving competence. They need to be confident about the relevance and reliability of any cognitive test, and be prewarned about what they will be subjected to.
Senior drivers need to be reassured that the system will not have any greater expectation of their driving competence, as compared to any young driver sitting for their restricted licence.
That’s just playing fair. Medically unfit to drive has got to be based on medical and driving evidence, and not just the judgment of an overworked GP.
