Today’s Headlines

Vision Zero Vigil for all victims of traffic violence
Tonight in Union Square North at 7pm

http://my.transalt.org/site/Calendar?id=102481&view=Detail&pw_id=3441&utm_source=visionzerovigil&utm_medium=jumpURL&utm_content=version1&utm_campaign=2016ADVO-FSS-Vigil

So…the driver knew he had seizures and didn’t take medication to prevent them. Then I say again, preventable crash, not “accident.”

Meanwhile, in places that actually give a rat’s ass about human life, action is taken to prevent people from driving if they cannot do so safely due to a medical condition.

No, we don’t have to go to Europe or Japan. All we have to do is look across the New York/Ontario border. A quote from:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/medical-review/physicians.shtml

“Every legally qualified medical practitioner shall report to the Registrar the name, address and clinical condition of every person sixteen years of age or over attending upon a medical practitioner for medical services, who, in the opinion of such medical practitioner is suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for such person to operate a motor vehicle.”

I, personally, prefer the term “whoopsy-doodle” when a human being is killed due to the willful negligence of another.

Well sure, if you want to get into technical terminology….

How about homicide?

Contrast that with New York State where as a physician I can’t break confidentiality to report a dangerous driver to the state even if I have substantive evidence that they are a clear and present danger (e.g. Untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea, untreated seizure disorder).

Killer’s name is Claudio Rodriguez

from post article

“….A bicyclist was killed Monday morning by an out-of-control driver who slammed into him near the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, cops said.

The driver, Claudio Rodriguez, apparently suffered a seizure at the wheel of his Honda Pilot SUV before fatally hitting the 35-year-old cyclist and striking two vehicles, sources said.

Six others were injured in the bloody chain of events.

Rodriguez, 37, lost control of the SUV while driving north on Fourth Avenue and slammed it into the back of a gray 2014 Toyota that was at a red light at the intersection of Dean Street, sources said.

The driver, Claudio Rodriguez, had apparently suffered a seizure while traveling north on Fourth Avenue in his Honda Pilot SUV, sources said.
Rodriguez, 37, lost control of the SUV and slammed it into the back of a gray 2014 Toyota that sitting at a red light at the intersection of Dean Street, sources said.

Witnesses and police said Rodriguez’s SUV then hopped the median and accelerated into oncoming traffic for a block before hitting the unidentified cyclist near Pacific Street.

With the cyclist’s body on the hood, the SUV continued north until he struck a black 2004 Mitsubishi that was traveling east on Atlantic Avenue, police said.
After smashing into the Mitsubishi, the SUV eventually came to a crashing halt outside a Vitamin Shoppe near Fourth and Flatbush avenues, police said.

“It was surreal,” said Joseph Weaver, 41, who witnessed the crash, which injured six others. “I still can’t believe what I saw.”

“I heard a loud bang. I saw a man’s body go up in the air,” said Weaver, a construction worker.

“The guy was motionless on the ground. It was scary.”
Rodriguez remained at the scene.

He spoke about the crash in a video recorded by an eyewitness and viewed by The Post.

“I was feeling, like, you know when you feel dizzy,” Rodriguez explains in the footage. “After that, I don’t remember until I hit the other guy and the other guy hit me.”

He admitted to cops that he had forgotten to take medication on Monday to control his seizures, law-enforcement sources said.

Cops have not charged Rodriguez with a crime and were waiting for his blood-test results.

Authorities added that the cyclist had a green light and was traveling with traffic at the time of the accident.

Five other people involved in the crash were taken to Methodist Hospital in serious but stable condition, police said….”

The statute you’re citing in Canada seems very clear that physicians are mandated reporters; I am however talking about New York state.

Protection of confidentiality between physician and patient is sacrosanct, and under a combination of HIPAA and state specific statutes breaking said confidentiality is limited to few exceptions. The protection of confidentiality is also not limited to public disclosures but to any disclosure to any third party from the patient that the patient does not explicitly authorize (or for which an exception is provided by statute).

Unfortunately, in New York State, there is no permissive reporting law on the books (as many other states have; some even have mandatory reporting laws similar to your Canadian example) that grants physicians immunity from criminal and civil liability for reporting a dangerous driver to the DMV.

Until such a law is on the books here, you’ll have to count on drivers to self report. Good luck with that!

video Of killer – Claudio Rodriguez

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Connecticut-Teen-Viral-Bucket-List-Saves-Friend-Crash-Rebecca-Townsend-Car-314978861.html

My wild guess is that it was a wild guess.

“Witnesses and police said Rodriguez’s SUV then hopped the median and accelerated into oncoming traffic for a block before hitting the unidentified cyclist near Pacific Street.”

Memo to whoever programmed this self-driving-SUV: You need to work on the “Sh–! I’ve rear-ended someone. Get me the fu– outta here!” routine.

About manufacturing zones and the proliferation of automotive businesses.

On what planet are these jobs upwardly mobile as indicated by some supporters? Also, as the article discusses, the externalities are huge and detrimental to communities where the vast majority do not even utilize those products and services.

Jerome Ave needs to be rezoned into a mixed use, dense, walkable, transportation orientated neighborhood as it once was.

How far do you want to take the reporting requirement? I mean, for what level of increased risk?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495589/

For a number of reasons, physicians should be restrained in reporting to
authorities drivers with a mild or moderate increase in driving risk.
First, this degree of added risk is on the same order as other
conditions where reporting is not considered professionally or legally
appropriate, e.g., benzodiazapine use. Second, the burdens of loss of
driving privilege may be out of proportion to threat to personal and
public safety. Third, physician-as-policer is of questionable long-term,
net benefit to patients. Patients may avoid health services in these
circumstances. This avoidance would limit physicians’ effectiveness in
caring for such patients and, by corollary, preclude physician
involvement in driver safety. Physicians should educate patients about
relevant conditions which impair driving, and be attentive to increases
in disability over time. For example, a patient with cataracts should be
educated as to its early effects on night vision. A patient declining
treatment for sleep apnea should be counseled about the increased
driving risk associated with the untreated condition. Where driving risk
is profound and the patient refuses to cease driving, physicians should
contact the licensing agency. The marked and immediate risk to patient
and public safety outweigh the potential consequences of reporting on
the future care of patients.

So the rest of us have to accept the consequences of someone’s refusal to take a f—ing bus?

I am in favor of going with what has a proven track record of working.

In those US states which have reporting requirements, the language tends to be similar to the Ontario example:

“…suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for such person to operate a motor vehicle.”

Obviously, one should err on the side of caution, so that innocent children and other members of the public do not wind up dead or seriously injured. Fortunately, such caution tends to be induced by the prospect of the doctor having his pants sued off for failing to report when there is a subsequent car crash and death or injury.

You’re dodging my question. What level of risk relative to the general driving population are you saying isn’t permitted in your system? Is it still equitable in a rural part of the state where there is minimal if any transit service?