'voluntary' roadside eye sight tests?

[martinbiz]

GasEngineer said:

Mr Pointy said:

OK, post a link to the DVLA website where it says you need a "special code" on your licence if you are short sighted & need glasses. None of the millions of myopic drivers in this country have a "special code" on their licence.

You've been proved wrong with your challenge. Time to eat humble pie !

Well not really, once again, as in the link posted, they specifically state that wearing glasses for correction of long or short sighteness is excluded. I think the gist of what he means is there are millions of drivers who need to wear glasses to meet the minimum standard for driving and who don't have (or need) a code on their licence, this is after all, believe it or not, where this thread for the hard of understanding started

This is also on the GOV website

"You must tell DVLA if you’ve got any problem with your eyesight that affects both of your eyes, or the remaining eye if you only have one eye.

This does not include being short or long sighted or colour blind. You also do not need to say if you’ve had surgery to correct short sightedness and can meet the eyesight standards"

None of the above obviously excuses you from driving whilst not meeting the minimum standard which is a completely separate issue

Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 8th May 11:30

Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 8th May 11:31

[Pica-Pica]

rlw said:

Pica-Pica said:

I think the roadside eyesight test is a very crude test, and is a bit single criteria based. It makes no cognisance of perception, judgement of position and speed, or of anticipation.

Does that mean you can perceive the presence of a pedestrian in the road even though you can't see them because you have st eyesight.

And, seriously, WTF does judgement of position and speed have to do with being blind as a bat. And if you can't see clearly, how can you anticipate properly?

The eyesight test is very basic but vision is the foundation of all the things you mention, which all rely upon your being able to make judgements based on what you can see.

You are talking about the eye, but judgement involves the brain interpreting that.
Did I mention anything about blindness? No. Don’t twist my words.

[sospan]

Evanivitch said:

Station Road? She was saved from prison "for the sake of her children".

Yes.

[LosingGrip]

We do them fairly often at work. Section 96 Road Traffic Act 1988.

Basically if we suspect someone is guilty of dodgy eyes we can request a test. Most crashes I do them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...

DVLA are very good at revoking a licence as well.

[rlw]

Pica-Pica said:

You are talking about the eye, but judgement involves the brain interpreting that.
Did I mention anything about blindness? No. Don’t twist my words.

Not twisting your words in the slightest but suggesting that failing a simple eye sight test could mean anything from slight short sightedness to near blindness.

How your brain interprets what you are seeing is largely dependent upon what you are seeing and, if you can't see it, you are fked. Hence a very simple test to ascertain that you are fit to drive.

If you are going to start testing drivers' judgement, that's a good place to start.

[RS_MAN_CHILD]

Would prefer they did roadside spot checks on legit insurance & legit driving licences first!

[Gareth79]

Evanivitch said:

martinbiz said:

Evanivitch said:

martinbiz said:

Sorry chap that's wrong as well, have you ever seen an INS Co specically ask if you need to wear glasses

Why would they? It doesn't affect your premium. Do they ask if you have an MOT too?

Don't be silly, why would you think that is that even vaguely the same thing, plus you also suggested that not telling them could land you in hot water in the event of an accident which is utter rubbish

If you need to wear eyesight correction and you're found not to be wearing correction you'll be in very hot water, with insurance and legally.

Insurance requires the vehicle and the person to be fit to drive. That's fundamental to all car insurance. Everything else is associated risk.

Insurance will always still pay out to a 3rd party in this sort of situation though - eg. needing glasses and not wearing them, poor eyesight which has been left uncorrected.

[Evanivitch]

Gareth79 said:

Insurance will always still pay out to a 3rd party in this sort of situation though - eg. needing glasses and not wearing them, poor eyesight which has been left uncorrected.

Sure. They can still sue you to recover costs.

[Wings]

Why reading a number plate at 20 metres, surely it is about whether I can see other road users car, cyclist, person etc. at 20 metres.

[handpaper]

Wings said:

Why reading a number plate at 20 metres, surely it is about whether I can see other road users car, cyclist, person etc. at 20 metres.

Because it's a simple, easily conducted test, using standardised materials which are very easily found.

Being able to distinguish letters and numbers of that size and font at that distance is a fair indication of whether a driver can distinguish a car, cyclist, pedestrian, etc. at a more useful distance.

[Gareth79]

Evanivitch said:

Gareth79 said:

Insurance will always still pay out to a 3rd party in this sort of situation though - eg. needing glasses and not wearing them, poor eyesight which has been left uncorrected.

Sure. They can still sue you to recover costs.

Pretty sure that's only permitted in specify circumstances (usually where the policy specifically excludes something they are liable for), and simply breaking the law while driving isn't one of them. For example if you did 100 on the motorway and had a blowout, writing off your car and a £100k Merc, would you expect to get sued for the costs?

[Evanivitch]

Gareth79 said:

Pretty sure that's only permitted in specify circumstances (usually where the policy specifically excludes something they are liable for), and simply breaking the law while driving isn't one of them. For example if you did 100 on the motorway and had a blowout, writing off your car and a £100k Merc, would you expect to get sued for the costs?

If it was deemed legally to be dangerous or wdc&a, yes.

Just like drink driving.

The point of the legislation was that the victim receives insurance money ASAP, and isn't left high and dry or waiting the results of a trial. The legislation isn't intended for the insurance to simply suck-up the risk of illegal driving.

[Ian Geary]

rlw said:

Pica-Pica said:

I think the roadside eyesight test is a very crude test, and is a bit single criteria based. It makes no cognisance of perception, judgement of position and speed, or of anticipation.

Does that mean you can perceive the presence of a pedestrian in the road even though you can't see them because you have st eyesight.

And, seriously, WTF does judgement of position and speed have to do with being blind as a bat. And if you can't see clearly, how can you anticipate properly?

The eyesight test is very basic but vision is the foundation of all the things you mention, which all rely upon your being able to make judgements based on what you can see.

Exactly. Classic PH symptoms of introducing an entirely separate thing and then arguing about it.

The eye sight test is crude but effective - it is, unsurprisingly, designed to test a single criteria of sight.

Speed cameras are a crude but effective measure to test a single criteria of speed (ignoring newer multifunction ones).

A weight check of commercial vehicles is a crude but effective check of the weight of a vehicle

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.


To assess someone's overall driving skills like perception , judgement and anticipation would obviously need more than a single criteria test - idk, something like a driving test perhaps?

Or at least an observation period of someone's driving.


As pica pica seems to suggest this roadside eyesight test is inadequate to test overall driving abilities (which is obvious), are they endorsing a roadside driving test perhaps??

Do they think single criteria tests are a waste of time perhaps?

Or maybe they are confusing the police choosing to put a bit of resources at a single issue they are worried about with the police having the resources to re-teat everyone's driving.


Patroling traf pol would hopefully be on the lookout for poor driving, or reports of it would come to plod's attention, or dash cam footage etc.

But a blitz on a single criteria test can be helpful to reiae awareness, and not get distracted trying to do the impossible and retest every aspect of driving.

There's been enough anecdotes on here to show drivers with poor eye sight are a problem.


I am curious to know what happens if a voluntary request is turned down though...?

[Pit Pony]

cptsideways said:

Family friend is an area manager for Specsavers they reckon about a third of drivers can't see roadsigns

And another 1/3 can see them and yet have not a clue what they mean.

The rest of us are ignoring about a 1/3 of the road signs.

[Pica-Pica]

Ian Geary said:

rlw said:

Pica-Pica said:

I think the roadside eyesight test is a very crude test, and is a bit single criteria based. It makes no cognisance of perception, judgement of position and speed, or of anticipation.

Does that mean you can perceive the presence of a pedestrian in the road even though you can't see them because you have st eyesight.

And, seriously, WTF does judgement of position and speed have to do with being blind as a bat. And if you can't see clearly, how can you anticipate properly?

The eyesight test is very basic but vision is the foundation of all the things you mention, which all rely upon your being able to make judgements based on what you can see.

Exactly. Classic PH symptoms of introducing an entirely separate thing and then arguing about it.

The eye sight test is crude but effective - it is, unsurprisingly, designed to test a single criteria of sight.

Speed cameras are a crude but effective measure to test a single criteria of speed (ignoring newer multifunction ones).

A weight check of commercial vehicles is a crude but effective check of the weight of a vehicle

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.


To assess someone's overall driving skills like perception , judgement and anticipation would obviously need more than a single criteria test - idk, something like a driving test perhaps?

Or at least an observation period of someone's driving.


As pica pica seems to suggest this roadside eyesight test is inadequate to test overall driving abilities (which is obvious), are they endorsing a roadside driving test perhaps??

Do they think single criteria tests are a waste of time perhaps?

Or maybe they are confusing the police choosing to put a bit of resources at a single issue they are worried about with the police having the resources to re-teat everyone's driving.


Patroling traf pol would hopefully be on the lookout for poor driving, or reports of it would come to plod's attention, or dash cam footage etc.

But a blitz on a single criteria test can be helpful to reiae awareness, and not get distracted trying to do the impossible and retest every aspect of driving.

There's been enough anecdotes on here to show drivers with poor eye sight are a problem.


I am curious to know what happens if a voluntary request is turned down though...?

1) how is processing information an entirely separate thing? The whole purpose of taking in information is to process it?
2) a weight check of a vehicle is not crude, it is absolute.
3) we have had brief but ineffective blitzes on middle lane hogging but ‘anecdotes on here’ show that still to be a problem.

Finally, do endorse re-tests every five years. I would suggest a re-test tow years after passing, and then every five years. That is not impossible - resource intensive, but not impossible - and would be self-funding through test fees.

[modellista]

cptsideways said:

Family friend is an area manager for Specsavers they reckon about a third of drivers can't see roadsigns

Hmm, not really. I'm an optometrist and the only grain of truth in that statement is: about a third of drivers need vision correction to see to the required standard. The vast majority use it. The number of people who either refuse to get specs that they need to achieve the driving standard, or have some ocular pathology that means they will never again see to the driving standard, is thankfully low.

However that doesn't account for the people who just don't go for eye tests because they think they won't pass. I would absolutely support mandatory vision checks at regular intervals for car drivers, like for HGV and PSV drivers.

I remember two cases in a twenty-year career when the patient quite openly admitted they would continue to drive with eyesight demonstrably below the standard - they argued they had nothing to gain and everything to lose by voluntarily stopping driving. The sanction if they were caught was to lose their licence, which was effectively what they were being asked to do voluntarily. In the meantime they can maintain their independence - these are usually elderly people in rural areas whose lifestyle would be unsustainable without a car.

As an aside, this leaves the practitioner in quite a medico-legal quandary, balancing the right to confidentiality with protection of the public. There was of course nothing you could directly do to prevent the patient driving away with substandard vision.

[jondude]

I do not think it is a case of drivers not being able to see you, more they are not looking properly or worse, have seen you but do not give a damn - they are far too important to give way to you. (Sadly the latter is becoming the norm)

We simply need real police out there targeting dangerous or careless driving. We have created a road network where those who really do not give a damn know they can pretty much drive as dangerously as they want but so long as they slow down for speed cameras, then the chances of them being held to account for their driving are nigh on zero.

[Richard-D]

Wings said:

Why reading a number plate at 20 metres, surely it is about whether I can see other road users car, cyclist, person etc. at 20 metres.

I would hope you can make out other road users as distances considerably greater than 20 metres.

I expect that someone who can read characters on a number plate at that distance could. Maybe that is the purpose of the test and it has been equated to the ability to see a person at an acceptable range.

[briggsy1]

handpaper said:

Wings said:

Why reading a number plate at 20 metres, surely it is about whether I can see other road users car, cyclist, person etc. at 20 metres.

Because it's a simple, easily conducted test, using standardised materials which are very easily found.

Being able to distinguish letters and numbers of that size and font at that distance is a fair indication of whether a driver can distinguish a car, cyclist, pedestrian, etc. at a more useful distance.

What a load of tosh. I'm short sighted and "need" glasses to drive (read a number plate at 20m) but it's so mild I can assure you I can quite easily distinguish between what you state, without glasses at any distance.

To be clear I wear my glasses.

[Mr Tidy]

Getting back to the original post how "voluntary" are these checks?

If truly voluntary surely anyone with dodgy eyesight is going to refuse anyway rather than get stopped from driving?

Although I think compulsory eye-tests would be a better idea than compulsory driving re-tests. So often when I'm driving at night I follow cars that slow down excessively for corners or almost stop when there is an oncoming vehicle I can't help thinking the drivers must have a vision issue.