You are more likely to have an accident if you have dyslexia than if you have been drinking see here (http://www.promotions.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/03/ndyslex03.xml)

So by demonising dyslexia we can sort of make drink driving look relatively ok or certainly less bad.

Is reporting from this angle irresponsible? You can choose whether to drink and drive but not whether you are dyslexic.

Will we now see insurance premiums go up as a result of being dyslexic? Who will openly admit that they are dyslexic and then have to face an extra driving test.

In fact what is the purpose of this research full stop?

Originally posted by Mo
You are more likely to have an accident if you have dyslexia than if you have been drinking see here (http://www.promotions.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/03/ndyslex03.xml)
Is reporting from this angle irresponsible? You can choose whether to drink and drive but not whether you are dyslexic.

Will we now see insurance premiums go up as a result of being dyslexic? Who will openly admit that they are dyslexic and then have to face an extra driving test.

In fact what is the purpose of this research full stop?

I don't like the way that dyslexia has been compared to drink driving, however it is important to know who poses a risk on the road; for example, people with heart complaints, diabetes, epilepsy etc. often have to report this to the DVLA, and may have terms imposed on their licence as a result.

With regards to increasing insurane premiums as a result of disabilities, this practice stopped several years ago after changes in the law (Disability Discrimination Act). The only time that an insurer is allowed to increase premiums / alter terms, is if the driver has had an accident that the medical condition was directly responsible for.

K x