NPA to discuss tighter rules for issuing driver's licenses to epileptics

However, Matsubara rejected calls for epileptics to be banned from driving altogether,

if so it will end up like any other 'study' group in Japan.

Of course it should be a criminal offense to deliberately withhold ANY information that could make you a dangerous driver, not just epilepsy but any medical condition. Why isnt it already?

Given the record of how Japan's finest makes decisions, it will be a decade before they makes a clear decision and another three years before it even becomes law; and who knows how many years before they enforce it.

People with epilepsy are often discriminated against in Japan

This is the problem. Make it illegal to discriminate against people for non-infectious illnesses and there will be less inclination to hide it. Honestly, if you're going to lose your job for being sick then naturally you feel it is unfair and might act less than ethically in response, but if you know you're protected and will just get shifted to a desk job for a few years there's a lot more incentive to own up.

the man’s doctors at the hospital where he was being treated for epilepsy had repeatedly urged him to stop driving.

This is also a problem. The standard limits of doctor-patient confidentiality in Western countries include a caveat along the lines of, "unless you reasonably suspect the patient is a danger to themselves or others". In a Western hospital the doctors would have been obligated by law to report the matter to the authorities (unless the patient lied and said they had stopped driving). I'm pretty sure there is a similar caveat here, and am puzzled about why it wasn't invoked... maybe there wasn't a form for it?

Should have included people over 65. Drivers in this age group have been statistically proven to be more likely to be involved in multi-vehicle accidents, particularly at intersections, as well as a major cause of pedestrian fatalities.

Glad they're finally starting to take steps to reduce accidents caused by epileptics though.

Should have included people over 65

and while we're at it, why not all the young drivers too? After all, they're the ones speeding and recklessly weaving in and out of traffic, not to mention the bosozoku...

Stay on topic please.

The rules as they stand are in line with international standards - epileptics have to be seizure free for two years before being allowed to drive, and that's fine - it means either they have outgrown the conditon (it happens) or that they have been stabilised through medication. The only change that needs making is that there needs to be a provision for doctors to notify the driver's license centre to have licenses pulled from newly-diagnosed epileptics, as can be done in most countries.

Well, I think it's a good idea to screen people for medical issues that may hinder a person's ability to drive a vehicle. However passing such legislation is Japan is like opening the flood gates for discrimination.

As an EXAMPLE only, NOT my opinion. but what if we ban drivers who have poor peripheral vision. If we did such a thing in the United States certain ethnic / minority groups (Gaikokujin) might complain that it's unfair and unreasonable. They can after all turn their heads to check.

It's the same you see. Those people with certain medical disabilities can be treated or make adjustments to their driving style.

So I think we should hold off on making any decisions that take away the person freedom of those with disabilities even if public safety is a concern.

Quite frankly, the way people stare at their mobile phones or listen to iPods while walking puts them at greater risk of being hit by a car than the chances of someone having a seizure while driving.

Sorry NetNinja, but I have to disagree. People with poor peripheral vision can do head checks, however people with epilepsy cannot avoid going into convulsions. With respect to people with their eyes glued to their cell phones, they are putting themselves - not others - at risk.

I feel that driving is a privilege, not a right, and I don't think it's fair to other citizens for driver's licenses to be issued to those who are at a highly increased risk of causing vehicular manslaughter. With respect to the discrimination issue, I agree that it is unfair to single people out due to a medical condition and think that Frungy (above) had a good solution for that.

Why is this even necessary to discuss? Maintaining public safety is not a form of discrimination. I feel sorry for those who suffer from epilepsy but putting them behind the wheel appears to be a game of Russian Roulette. Maybe AKB48 can write a song asking them to refrain from driving.

They need to choose the "carrot" over the "stick" here.

A large portion of society -- not all of it, of course, but just about everything outside the big cities -- is designed around the automobile, and under the presupposition that every adult can drive one. (This is much worse in the USA, Canada, and Australia.) Only a small percentage of the population is banned from driving due to medical reasons, so they don't have enough votes to get society to do right by them. Instead, they're stuck living only in places where there's good transportation, working only at employers reachable from public transportation, and hoping all the time that their employers never move the workplace to some automobile-dependent suburb, which would make them have to quit. They're in danger of getting hit by cars on the streets, and breathing in pollution from cars, yet they never get any benefit from those cars.

Society should proactively offer incentives to non-drivers that partially make up for this injustice. How about a rent/mortgage voucher for epileptics so that they can move to a big city? How about a food delivery program so that they don't have to dodge automobiles while walking to the store? Make the incentive large enough that people who might be able to get away with driving for a little while before disaster strikes, like the Kyoto epileptic driver, will rationally choose not to drive and will be able to live a normal life without an automobile.

In the thread about this accident, I suggested a tax break of about Y2 million. When you think of how much of people's tax money goes to automobile infrastructure, and that certain taxpayers are legally banned from making use of this infrastructure, it's really not a lot of money.

If society is going to make certain people into second-class citizens due to medical "defects", these people deserve to be compensated for that. If such compensation isn't offered, then these people will just attempt to get into the privileged majority by hook or by crook. Give them an incentive not to lie!

Society should proactively offer incentives to non-drivers that partially make up for this injustice. How about a rent/mortgage voucher for epileptics so that they can move to a big city?

There are towns in Japan that give taxi vouchers to the elderly.

There are towns in Japan that give taxi vouchers to the elderly.

That looks good on the surface, but might actually be counterproductive. A 66-year-old with perfect vision and reflexes who owns an automobile could be driven around at public expense, whereas a 30-year-old with epilepsy or impaired eyesight who just wants to get around town and support himself and his family gets nothing (and has to pay more in taxes to support the 66-year-old's privilege).

Just base the vouchers on whether or not the recipient has driving privileges, and I think it's a great idea.

Hey, as long as they also check people with heart problems or high blood pressure thus a stroke risk, I don't see anything unnecessarily hysterical or discriminatory about this.

This is in reaction to one accident. Tragic, sure, but only one . Meanwhile, how many kids/animals die in overheated cars, how many elderly people are killed by their caregivers who simply can't cope any more, how many women have been murdered by abusive partners / ex-partners / strangers, despite going to the police for help...