The Washington Legislature has adjourned, so there’s little it can do to deal with a glaring legal oversight that came to light following the highly publicized trial of Clifford Helm.

The next Legislature, however, has a challenge that belongs high on its to-do list when it convenes next January: What can be done to terminate the driving privileges of someone whose health makes him a threat to the motoring public?

Helm was acquitted of vehicular homicide and vehicular assault in the traffic accident that killed five children Nov. 1, 2005. He and his witnesses convinced the jury that the accident was the result of a physical condition that caused him to pass out at the wheel, thus absolving him of criminal responsibility.

But now that this condition – “cough syncope” – has been identified, and its tragic consequences are understood, the logical next step is to withdraw Helm’s driving privileges. But it’s not that simple, and that reasonable action hasn’t happened.

You would think that someone who experienced the nightmare that befell Helm would voluntarily refrain from driving. But when conscience and humanity aren’t in play, the law needs to step in.

Helm’s driver’s license is secure, according to the state Department of Licensing, because no one has formally notified the agency of his condition. That’s a clear entry point for lawmakers.

Under the law, teachers who see signs of child abuse must report it to the state. Under the law, doctors who treat gunshot wounds must report it to authorities. A similar reporting obligation ought to be created for situations like Helm’s. The law should demand that treating physicians and law enforcement officers who learn of a condition that could make a driver pass out at the wheel notify the Department of Licensing.

Of course, Helm refused for months to talk to the Washington State Patrol about the crash, so they wouldn’t have known. And the doctor who testified at his trial was brought in as a witness, not a treating physician. But as soon as Helm’s lawyer notified the court of his defense strategy, the prosecutor should have had a duty to get that information to the state.

For that matter, the Department of Licensing’s own procedures need attention. At present, a driver renewing a license is asked if he or she had fainted in the past six months. (Helm renewed his license in October 2006, 11 months after the accident.) The department should instead ask whether the driver had fainted since the last license was issued.

And while the Department of Licensing lacks the resources to monitor all trials and news accounts across the state, it shouldn’t be so restricted by its own policies that it ignores credible information that emerges conspicuously from a high-profile case like Helm’s.

By his own account, Helm has a health problem that caused the deaths of five children. He still has it, and other families and children who share the highways with him are at risk. That’s inexcusable, and if Helm or others in his situation won’t give up their keys on their own, the government has a public-safety responsibility.

At the end of Helm’s trial, his attorney told the jury: “… What we can do is make sure that another tragedy doesn’t occur.”

Exactly.