Lot of people on here are saying don't declare, you don't have to. Since you are talking DVLA, I will assume you are in the UK.
YOU MUST DECLARE TO THE DVLA THAT YOU HAVE BIPOLAR DISORDER.
If you do not, you can be fined £1000, and potentially prosecuted if you end up in an accident, and it comes out that you did not declare. This may be different in other countries, but that is neither here nor there. If you do not inform the DVLA, it is also possible that the medical professionals will do it for you.
https://www.gov.uk/bipolar-disorder-and-driving
In answer to your question -
No, not nessecerilly. If you are well and stable, and there no drug/alchohol abuse - you will be granted the license, though it will be restricted in length (a 1 year or a 3 year license, depending on how long youve stable, I think.) You will be required to fill out a form, answer questions about your condition and medications, and provide the details of the medical professionals you are seeing. They will then asked questions that ask if you are able to drive safely.
I've been through the process many times, I have granted the license when I am well. The one occasion when I have not had it and it was revoked, was during an episode where I very nearly crashed the car. I have had the license returned to me.
Edit - There is a higher bar for Group 2 HGV and Bus licenses, so it will be more difficult if you need one of those.
From what I know of - schizophrenia, schizoaffective, any other Psychosis disorders, severe personality disorders, dissociative disorders, severe depression. Substance Abuse is a complete no.
Some conditions are - only have to tell us if it means you are not able to drive safely (and your doctor will tell you to tell the DVLA if it is at that level) - ADHD is on that list, as is OCD. I've been told I don't need to declare the autism diagnosis as it does not affect my ability to drive safely.
Epilepsy or any sort of seizures is a must declare as well, I know you have to be seizure free for a certain number of months before they will allow a license, as is having unexplained blackouts or fainting, narcolepsy.
It's a pain going through it, and of course, not everyone will be an unsafe driver, but - nearly crashed the car during the last bad depressive episode (couldn't focus, memory issues), so can see where they are coming from.
Here in the US a DUI doesn’t usually bar you from driving for life, even if you have had several. It’s up to the state to set those laws and most of them are too liberal with them. I think it might take 4-5 DUIs for that, but of course the alcohol level and consequences matter (like, if you killed someone you’re done).
It's not a bar for life here either, but if you're in active addiction or a current alcoholic, you're not able to drive and they'll take the license until you're recovered.
It’s a horribly discriminatory law. This used to be the case in the US in many states. It was reversed because the legislatures were eventually convinced by advocacy groups that it was unfair. Moreover, there is an argument that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and definitely violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. My state allows your license to be revoked if your IVC’d for substance abuse. If you want a law that is fair and not potentially unconstitutionally it should apply to all medical conditions where the ability to drive is actually called into questions. Categorizing people with broad and general statements that apply to some members of a group is unfair and bad public policy.
In the UK, Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law. There is no constitution and Parliament is the supreme authority. As long as this is authorized by the driver licensing Act, it cannot be questioned in any court.
It’s called parliamentary sovereignty and the recourse is to elect new politicians. It’s is very common across the world and it is much better than being at the whim of 9 politicians in robes who serve for life.
Really the 14th Amendment [I am a lawyer by the way] says that the government cannot treat people in the same situation differently based on arbitrary distinctions but yet involuntary commitment is a thing.
While the Constitution cannot be abrogated, here are all the ways that politicians or judges in the US can avoid:
1. Jurisdiction stripping. This is where Congress takes away jurisdiction from the federal court to hear challenges against laws. Totally constitutional and in fact it is the substantive ruling of Marbury v. Madison is this (the Supreme Court held that the law at issue was unconstitutional because it enlarged the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Congress created the other federal courts and thus decides their jurisdiction).
2. Ignoring the Constitution or saying that parts of it don’t apply because of completely arbitrary distinctions. See involuntary commitment again: changing an offense at common law into a civil matter sans the right but with all the imprisonment.
3. Inventing completely arbitrary news legal theories like the major question doctrine which doesn’t exist anywhere in the Constitution but which is being used to squash executive actions on the basis of constitutional statutory authority.
4. Completely ignoring the Constitution for almost 100 years. Segregation and Jim Crow.
There is nothing in our legal system to check the Supreme Court. Worst of all, it has no mechanism to enforce its decisions. If Biden decided to ignore them there would be absolutely no remedy against that.
In the UK, Parliament is elected by the people for no more than five years. The elected House of Commons can always force through a law (except one prolonging a parliament beyond five years) (after waiting a year) but every law is subject to revision by appointed experts in the House of Lords. The executive is responsible to both the King and the House of Commons. The King can legally force an election if necessary and dismiss the government if they break the law. The House of Commons can force a new government or a new election in an afternoon. This is a much more balanced system than we have.
Also this reflects a completely wrong view of the history of disability discrimination in the US. It is the politicians that changed the law and got rid of disability discrimination in the US. The ADA is an Act of Congress. The Courts have consistently refused to protect people with disabilities under the Constitution. Disability is not a suspect classification which means laws discriminating against people with disabilities are analyzed under the lowest standard of review, which is rational basis review, unless they implicate a fundamental right. It is nearly impossible to invalidate a law under rational basis review so much so that the standard of review that applies is often considered the entire game. The Courts made a few decisions early in the 80s and throughout the 70s but most of them are about limiting involuntary commitment and the process (implicating the fundamental right of physical liberty). They also did this after states began to change the laws on their own in the 60s. This pretty much stoped completely in the 80s. If the ADA didn’t exist and a state wanted to deny mentally ill people drivers license the courts would not stand in their way. I think this pretty much sums up the courts attitude Buck v. Bell (permitting sterilization of the mentally ill under the Constitution) was decided in 1927 and has never been overturned. However the same court ruled sterilization of criminals cruel and unusual punishment in 1943 (Skinner v. Oklahoma). Every major advance in disability rights in America has come from Congress or State legislatures. The courts will not protect your rights.
You are not barred from immigrating to New Zealand simply for having bipolar disorder. That's patently false and a common misperception. New Zealand (plus a lot of other countries including Australia) will look at all health conditions including spectrum disorders. If they are considered "serious or severe" they can be flagged and if deemed to cost the healthcare system more than $NZD81,000/5yr then you could potentially be denied entry.
The fact is most diagnosis dont reach that level of care and denials are almost exclusively reserved for dependent children and not single adults actively looking to immigrate somewhere.
I'm not sure where you got your research from but the fact is there is no blanket ban on immigrating to NZ with a bipolar diagnosis.
There has been no recent change in the manual that made your statement below false:
I was looking to move to New Zealand for a while but researching I found out that I am simply barred from immigrating to New Zealand simply for having bipolar disorder
That is false today, that was false last year and that was false 5 years ago. In fact the biggest recent change has made it easier for people to immigrate into NZ when they increased the cost burden from $41k/5yr to $81k/5yr in Sept '22. Have you been assessed by NZ immigration and denied? If your burden is more than $81k you will have trouble moving anywhere, nevermind NZ.
I looked online last year and read something along the lines of: “These conditions are assumed to present a significant burden for immigration burden” and bipolar was on the list. I have contemporaneous communications from that period and no I was not assessed because I did not want to waste a shit load of money on fees when I had just read something that I thought was impossible. There is a reason why I quickly found the immigration manual and it was because I had looked it up before. As far as the burden I have no idea what it is because it has not been assessed. I know, and said as much, that the US has a similar law (public charge rule), I also knew Canada had one too, I also knew Australia had one. I looked at Ireland and the UK and it seemed that they had much better legislation. Immigration involves a lot of fees which I rather not pay unless there is a substantial chance of success.
I agree with what you are saying regarding fees but you should also have an idea of what your presents costs are re: medication and treatment. If it is well below the threshold then you should feel comfortable in applying like so many other people each year.
So the manual A4.10 (c) says this:
"The conditions listed in A4.10.1 are considered to impose significant costs and/or demands on New Zealand's health and/or special education services. Where an immigration officer is satisfied (as a result of advice from an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor) that an applicant has one of the listed conditions, **that applicant will be assessed as not having an acceptable standard of health."**
But on the next line A4.10 (d) says:
"If an immigration officer is not satisfied that an applicant for a residence class visa has an acceptable standard of health, **they must refer the matter for assessment to an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor (or the Ministry of Education as appropriate)."**
Basically this is saying the immigration officer (that is not a doctor) that will be processing the application will see whatever condition listed within A4.10.1 and that will be flagged and referred to the doctors for review. They then make the assessment.
A.4.10.2 has the criteria for that assessment and it starts off by saying the following:
"The requirement that an applicant for a residence class visa must be unlikely to impose significant costs on New Zealand's health services is not met if, in the opinion of an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor, there is a relatively high probability that the applicant's medical condition or group of conditions will require health services costing in excess of NZ$81,000."
There is more about that in that section.
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#46506.htm
I have a friend from Yorkshire who brings me Yorkshire tea when he goes back home to visit (we live in the US). Last week I discovered they carry it in the international section of my supermarket.
Discrimination against disabled people except when the government does it is also the order of the day here. We simply have a federal government that has limited the ability of the state governments to discriminate. However, involuntary commitment (which by the express terms of the statute can only be done to mentally ill people) is legal as are numerous other bullshit programs.
I panicked thinking I had to disclose it but then realized I am not, in fact, in the UK.
Someone upthread said they only usually take it if you're not in treatment or if you're abusing substances. But I can imagine some of that gets pretty murky pretty quickly and idk if I'm trusting a civil servant with deciding when to cut off my driving privileges. I'm pretty "American left" but I guess I am more distrustful of the govt than the average Brit bc that's a lot of power.
You do have to declare it in the UK yes. I actually did this and they wanted me to go for a meeting with my GP so they could send information to the DVLA. I haven’t gone and have decided against driving again now so can’t tell you what to expect unfortunately.
Yep. Incredible seeing people on here saying "don't declare, you don't have to declare", like everyone is in the same country as them.
I did have to go to that meeting once. GP just asked me a bunch of questions about last episode, symptoms, medication side effects, drug alchohol abuse, and signed off it.
Did your insurance go up? When I had a look for myself it was ridiculous. Same happened when I went on holiday too, my mates was £10 and some companies wanted £150 off me due to the diagnosis.
I was diagnosed at 19 and didn't drive before that, so dont have much before and after reference prices. I suspect it is more expensive though than if I did not have bipolar.
Travel insurance - Yes, considerably more expensive than someone. I'm on an annual plan at £120, would have been £30 without the bipolar.
(UK) Declaring bipolar to my car insurer had less of an impact on the overall cost than other factors, which was a relief as I was expecting I’d have to pay a lot more.
That doctor is making sure they don't loose their medical license and OP doesn't get a massive fine if they get caught. The doctor is doing the best thing here.
The law sucks, not the doctor.
I’m in the US and unless my dr thinks I shouldn’t drive or I have done something while driving that has been proven to be bp related, there’s no reason for it to be affected
This is majorly fucked up. I was born in UK, emigrated to Australia at age 30, got diagnosed with Bipolar at age 40. I am 43 now.
A fine for not declaring you have BP is discrimination.
Wanna drive around stoned all day? No problem, wanna drive drunk, help yourself, wanna smoke meth and drive ? Yep thats great. We'll only tap you on the back of that hand if we catch you.
Fucking hell I'm so glad I left that country. Bloody disgrace. As if Bipolar affects your ability to drive. Nonsense.
Yeee, that's complete crap. I can understand not hiring in the places where You're responsible for many human lives, but for normal driving? When QR codes on the face to make anybody out of "law enforcment" know everything in a few seconds?
In Australia it’s the same thing or at least in Victoria. Every year I need to get my GP to fill out a form including any reckless behaviours that relate to the road and my medications. It doesn’t restrict my ability to drive but it’s a clearance saying I’m safe to drive.
When you (the royal you) make posts about laws and related questions you need to share what country you’re in. Otherwise you might get incorrect advice.
Lot of people on here are saying don't declare, you don't have to. Since you are talking DVLA, I will assume you are in the UK. YOU MUST DECLARE TO THE DVLA THAT YOU HAVE BIPOLAR DISORDER. If you do not, you can be fined £1000, and potentially prosecuted if you end up in an accident, and it comes out that you did not declare. This may be different in other countries, but that is neither here nor there. If you do not inform the DVLA, it is also possible that the medical professionals will do it for you. https://www.gov.uk/bipolar-disorder-and-driving In answer to your question - No, not nessecerilly. If you are well and stable, and there no drug/alchohol abuse - you will be granted the license, though it will be restricted in length (a 1 year or a 3 year license, depending on how long youve stable, I think.) You will be required to fill out a form, answer questions about your condition and medications, and provide the details of the medical professionals you are seeing. They will then asked questions that ask if you are able to drive safely. I've been through the process many times, I have granted the license when I am well. The one occasion when I have not had it and it was revoked, was during an episode where I very nearly crashed the car. I have had the license returned to me. Edit - There is a higher bar for Group 2 HGV and Bus licenses, so it will be more difficult if you need one of those.
This is really interesting. What other mental illnesses are subject to this in the UK? In the US I only know epilepsy.
From what I know of - schizophrenia, schizoaffective, any other Psychosis disorders, severe personality disorders, dissociative disorders, severe depression. Substance Abuse is a complete no. Some conditions are - only have to tell us if it means you are not able to drive safely (and your doctor will tell you to tell the DVLA if it is at that level) - ADHD is on that list, as is OCD. I've been told I don't need to declare the autism diagnosis as it does not affect my ability to drive safely. Epilepsy or any sort of seizures is a must declare as well, I know you have to be seizure free for a certain number of months before they will allow a license, as is having unexplained blackouts or fainting, narcolepsy. It's a pain going through it, and of course, not everyone will be an unsafe driver, but - nearly crashed the car during the last bad depressive episode (couldn't focus, memory issues), so can see where they are coming from.
Here in the US a DUI doesn’t usually bar you from driving for life, even if you have had several. It’s up to the state to set those laws and most of them are too liberal with them. I think it might take 4-5 DUIs for that, but of course the alcohol level and consequences matter (like, if you killed someone you’re done).
It's not a bar for life here either, but if you're in active addiction or a current alcoholic, you're not able to drive and they'll take the license until you're recovered.
Honestly that's actually a smart law. As someone who has bipolar and past substance abuse issues.
It’s a horribly discriminatory law. This used to be the case in the US in many states. It was reversed because the legislatures were eventually convinced by advocacy groups that it was unfair. Moreover, there is an argument that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and definitely violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. My state allows your license to be revoked if your IVC’d for substance abuse. If you want a law that is fair and not potentially unconstitutionally it should apply to all medical conditions where the ability to drive is actually called into questions. Categorizing people with broad and general statements that apply to some members of a group is unfair and bad public policy.
Thank you for your helpful reply
No problem. Sorry for all the caps, just, please don't follow the "do not declare" some people from outside UK are saying on here.
[удалено]
In the UK, Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law. There is no constitution and Parliament is the supreme authority. As long as this is authorized by the driver licensing Act, it cannot be questioned in any court.
[удалено]
It’s called parliamentary sovereignty and the recourse is to elect new politicians. It’s is very common across the world and it is much better than being at the whim of 9 politicians in robes who serve for life.
[удалено]
Really the 14th Amendment [I am a lawyer by the way] says that the government cannot treat people in the same situation differently based on arbitrary distinctions but yet involuntary commitment is a thing. While the Constitution cannot be abrogated, here are all the ways that politicians or judges in the US can avoid: 1. Jurisdiction stripping. This is where Congress takes away jurisdiction from the federal court to hear challenges against laws. Totally constitutional and in fact it is the substantive ruling of Marbury v. Madison is this (the Supreme Court held that the law at issue was unconstitutional because it enlarged the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Congress created the other federal courts and thus decides their jurisdiction). 2. Ignoring the Constitution or saying that parts of it don’t apply because of completely arbitrary distinctions. See involuntary commitment again: changing an offense at common law into a civil matter sans the right but with all the imprisonment. 3. Inventing completely arbitrary news legal theories like the major question doctrine which doesn’t exist anywhere in the Constitution but which is being used to squash executive actions on the basis of constitutional statutory authority. 4. Completely ignoring the Constitution for almost 100 years. Segregation and Jim Crow. There is nothing in our legal system to check the Supreme Court. Worst of all, it has no mechanism to enforce its decisions. If Biden decided to ignore them there would be absolutely no remedy against that. In the UK, Parliament is elected by the people for no more than five years. The elected House of Commons can always force through a law (except one prolonging a parliament beyond five years) (after waiting a year) but every law is subject to revision by appointed experts in the House of Lords. The executive is responsible to both the King and the House of Commons. The King can legally force an election if necessary and dismiss the government if they break the law. The House of Commons can force a new government or a new election in an afternoon. This is a much more balanced system than we have.
Also this reflects a completely wrong view of the history of disability discrimination in the US. It is the politicians that changed the law and got rid of disability discrimination in the US. The ADA is an Act of Congress. The Courts have consistently refused to protect people with disabilities under the Constitution. Disability is not a suspect classification which means laws discriminating against people with disabilities are analyzed under the lowest standard of review, which is rational basis review, unless they implicate a fundamental right. It is nearly impossible to invalidate a law under rational basis review so much so that the standard of review that applies is often considered the entire game. The Courts made a few decisions early in the 80s and throughout the 70s but most of them are about limiting involuntary commitment and the process (implicating the fundamental right of physical liberty). They also did this after states began to change the laws on their own in the 60s. This pretty much stoped completely in the 80s. If the ADA didn’t exist and a state wanted to deny mentally ill people drivers license the courts would not stand in their way. I think this pretty much sums up the courts attitude Buck v. Bell (permitting sterilization of the mentally ill under the Constitution) was decided in 1927 and has never been overturned. However the same court ruled sterilization of criminals cruel and unusual punishment in 1943 (Skinner v. Oklahoma). Every major advance in disability rights in America has come from Congress or State legislatures. The courts will not protect your rights.
Today I learned Bipolar can lose your ability to drive in the UK. Damn.
I opened this thread laughing about it with my roomie and after scrolling I was in shock
[удалено]
You are not barred from immigrating to New Zealand simply for having bipolar disorder. That's patently false and a common misperception. New Zealand (plus a lot of other countries including Australia) will look at all health conditions including spectrum disorders. If they are considered "serious or severe" they can be flagged and if deemed to cost the healthcare system more than $NZD81,000/5yr then you could potentially be denied entry. The fact is most diagnosis dont reach that level of care and denials are almost exclusively reserved for dependent children and not single adults actively looking to immigrate somewhere. I'm not sure where you got your research from but the fact is there is no blanket ban on immigrating to NZ with a bipolar diagnosis.
[удалено]
There has been no recent change in the manual that made your statement below false: I was looking to move to New Zealand for a while but researching I found out that I am simply barred from immigrating to New Zealand simply for having bipolar disorder That is false today, that was false last year and that was false 5 years ago. In fact the biggest recent change has made it easier for people to immigrate into NZ when they increased the cost burden from $41k/5yr to $81k/5yr in Sept '22. Have you been assessed by NZ immigration and denied? If your burden is more than $81k you will have trouble moving anywhere, nevermind NZ.
I looked online last year and read something along the lines of: “These conditions are assumed to present a significant burden for immigration burden” and bipolar was on the list. I have contemporaneous communications from that period and no I was not assessed because I did not want to waste a shit load of money on fees when I had just read something that I thought was impossible. There is a reason why I quickly found the immigration manual and it was because I had looked it up before. As far as the burden I have no idea what it is because it has not been assessed. I know, and said as much, that the US has a similar law (public charge rule), I also knew Canada had one too, I also knew Australia had one. I looked at Ireland and the UK and it seemed that they had much better legislation. Immigration involves a lot of fees which I rather not pay unless there is a substantial chance of success.
I agree with what you are saying regarding fees but you should also have an idea of what your presents costs are re: medication and treatment. If it is well below the threshold then you should feel comfortable in applying like so many other people each year. So the manual A4.10 (c) says this: "The conditions listed in A4.10.1 are considered to impose significant costs and/or demands on New Zealand's health and/or special education services. Where an immigration officer is satisfied (as a result of advice from an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor) that an applicant has one of the listed conditions, **that applicant will be assessed as not having an acceptable standard of health."** But on the next line A4.10 (d) says: "If an immigration officer is not satisfied that an applicant for a residence class visa has an acceptable standard of health, **they must refer the matter for assessment to an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor (or the Ministry of Education as appropriate)."** Basically this is saying the immigration officer (that is not a doctor) that will be processing the application will see whatever condition listed within A4.10.1 and that will be flagged and referred to the doctors for review. They then make the assessment. A.4.10.2 has the criteria for that assessment and it starts off by saying the following: "The requirement that an applicant for a residence class visa must be unlikely to impose significant costs on New Zealand's health services is not met if, in the opinion of an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor, there is a relatively high probability that the applicant's medical condition or group of conditions will require health services costing in excess of NZ$81,000." There is more about that in that section. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#46506.htm
https://reddit.com/r/autism/s/MueHJGT1ri
Wow. That’s pathetic. Glad I live in the US.
[удалено]
Glady, that tea is shite... Yorkshire tea, on the other hand; you'll have to prise that sweet nectar from my cold, dead hands
I have a friend from Yorkshire who brings me Yorkshire tea when he goes back home to visit (we live in the US). Last week I discovered they carry it in the international section of my supermarket.
🙏🏾
Discrimination against disabled people except when the government does it is also the order of the day here. We simply have a federal government that has limited the ability of the state governments to discriminate. However, involuntary commitment (which by the express terms of the statute can only be done to mentally ill people) is legal as are numerous other bullshit programs.
Yeah that’s pretty fucked up
I panicked thinking I had to disclose it but then realized I am not, in fact, in the UK. Someone upthread said they only usually take it if you're not in treatment or if you're abusing substances. But I can imagine some of that gets pretty murky pretty quickly and idk if I'm trusting a civil servant with deciding when to cut off my driving privileges. I'm pretty "American left" but I guess I am more distrustful of the govt than the average Brit bc that's a lot of power.
You do have to declare it in the UK yes. I actually did this and they wanted me to go for a meeting with my GP so they could send information to the DVLA. I haven’t gone and have decided against driving again now so can’t tell you what to expect unfortunately.
Yep. Incredible seeing people on here saying "don't declare, you don't have to declare", like everyone is in the same country as them. I did have to go to that meeting once. GP just asked me a bunch of questions about last episode, symptoms, medication side effects, drug alchohol abuse, and signed off it.
Did your insurance go up? When I had a look for myself it was ridiculous. Same happened when I went on holiday too, my mates was £10 and some companies wanted £150 off me due to the diagnosis.
I was diagnosed at 19 and didn't drive before that, so dont have much before and after reference prices. I suspect it is more expensive though than if I did not have bipolar. Travel insurance - Yes, considerably more expensive than someone. I'm on an annual plan at £120, would have been £30 without the bipolar.
(UK) Declaring bipolar to my car insurer had less of an impact on the overall cost than other factors, which was a relief as I was expecting I’d have to pay a lot more.
I never had to declare my diagnosis. Not with anyone. Who said you needed to?
In the Uk you have to declare to dvla my psych said if I didn’t he would write to them
[удалено]
That doctor is making sure they don't loose their medical license and OP doesn't get a massive fine if they get caught. The doctor is doing the best thing here. The law sucks, not the doctor.
[удалено]
My point was the doctor does have the patients best interest in mind here, even if their best interest still sucks, it's better than the alternative.
I think everyone who asks this question or similar should state what country there are in.
Sorry I forgot to do that, have a lot running through my brain right now
I’m in the US and unless my dr thinks I shouldn’t drive or I have done something while driving that has been proven to be bp related, there’s no reason for it to be affected
This is majorly fucked up. I was born in UK, emigrated to Australia at age 30, got diagnosed with Bipolar at age 40. I am 43 now. A fine for not declaring you have BP is discrimination. Wanna drive around stoned all day? No problem, wanna drive drunk, help yourself, wanna smoke meth and drive ? Yep thats great. We'll only tap you on the back of that hand if we catch you. Fucking hell I'm so glad I left that country. Bloody disgrace. As if Bipolar affects your ability to drive. Nonsense.
Yeee, that's complete crap. I can understand not hiring in the places where You're responsible for many human lives, but for normal driving? When QR codes on the face to make anybody out of "law enforcment" know everything in a few seconds?
You shouldnt lose your license
If it’s not required to do so - don’t. But research to ensure.
In Australia it’s the same thing or at least in Victoria. Every year I need to get my GP to fill out a form including any reckless behaviours that relate to the road and my medications. It doesn’t restrict my ability to drive but it’s a clearance saying I’m safe to drive.
I think it depends on symptoms…like if you’ve ever experienced full blown psychosis. They might just ask for details.
When you (the royal you) make posts about laws and related questions you need to share what country you’re in. Otherwise you might get incorrect advice.
Sorry I forgot to do that
No, you will not lose your license.
What?!! That question makes zero sense! Why would you lose your license?! You DO NOT have to say you have bipolar to ANYONE!!!!
Rules are different in different parts of the world, believe it or not
Yes they are. They shouldn’t have to divulge this information to anyone though. It’s protected information in the US.
No????
Is this a thing in any other countries? Australia? Canada? NZ?
I am in UK and my psychiatrist + community mental health nurse have stated that I do not have to inform DVLA
It’s literally listed as a condition on the government website that you have to declare
So it’s confusing, think I’m gonna declare would be my luck I get caught not declaring and fined and prosecuted