'voluntary' roadside eye sight tests?
Discussion
briggsy1 said:
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.
To be clear I wear my glasses.
As for the "load of tosh" comment, you have stated you can distinguish between objects "at any distance", which is clearly not correct, all of us have a visual acuity limit - a combination of object size and distance where we just about stop being able to distinguish detail.
If you are a mild myope but require specs to drive, let's say your prescription is -1.00. That means that your eyes are at their sharpest at one metre away, rather than infinity. Beyond a metre, things start to get blurry. Since we consider 6m to be roughly equivalent to infinity, you need to be six times closer to something to see it as clearly as someone without any prescription. The further things are away, the more blurred they are.
For day-to-day tasks that might seem small potatoes, but driving at 75mph on a motorway, things are different. You're covering 100m every three seconds. Without your glasses you need to be six times closer to objects to see them as clearly as someone without specs. Let's say a van has dropped a brick in the road, a small object but with the potential to cause an accident at motorway speeds. For argument's sake, everyone else sees it at 600m away, but you don't see it until you're 100m away. They have 18 seconds to react, you have three.
Hopefully this illustrates the point. Measurements are approximate but in the ball park.
I know you wear your specs for driving, but it's not "a load of tosh" to require you to do so. If anything, the current standard for driving cars is fairly lenient.
Nice post from modellista above. With regards the number plate issue I also think that it demonstrates that we all need to be able to read road signs easily from a distance and time wasted doing that compromises road safety. On the voluntary tests I hope that they raise awareness and anyone who doesnt want to take part will have a think about why that is. Perhaps just pace out 20m and do the test in private to see what happens?
modellista said:
briggsy1 said:
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.
To be clear I wear my glasses.
As for the "load of tosh" comment, you have stated you can distinguish between objects "at any distance", which is clearly not correct, all of us have a visual acuity limit - a combination of object size and distance where we just about stop being able to distinguish detail.
If you are a mild myope but require specs to drive, let's say your prescription is -1.00. That means that your eyes are at their sharpest at one metre away, rather than infinity. Beyond a metre, things start to get blurry. Since we consider 6m to be roughly equivalent to infinity, you need to be six times closer to something to see it as clearly as someone without any prescription. The further things are away, the more blurred they are.
For day-to-day tasks that might seem small potatoes, but driving at 75mph on a motorway, things are different. You're covering 100m every three seconds. Without your glasses you need to be six times closer to objects to see them as clearly as someone without specs. Let's say a van has dropped a brick in the road, a small object but with the potential to cause an accident at motorway speeds. For argument's sake, everyone else sees it at 600m away, but you don't see it until you're 100m away. They have 18 seconds to react, you have three.
Hopefully this illustrates the point. Measurements are approximate but in the ball park.
I know you wear your specs for driving, but it's not "a load of tosh" to require you to do so. If anything, the current standard for driving cars is fairly lenient.
‘… Let's say a van has dropped a brick in the road, a small object but with the potential to cause an accident at motorway speeds. For argument's sake, everyone else sees it at 600m away, but you don't see it until you're 100m away. They have 18 seconds to react, you have three.’
is a spurious one and completely unrelated to the ‘20 metre number plate test’. Two completely different aspects of eyesight test.
modellista said:
I know you wear your specs for driving, but it's not "a load of tosh" to require you to do so. If anything, the current standard for driving cars is fairly lenient.
Agreed. I have code 01 on my licence for all permitted vehicle categories making it illegal for me to drive without my glasses, although I don't remember actively telling DVLA of this. Guessing the examiner when I took my test flagged that I was wearing specs and put the code in (same as 78 for automatic). Easy peasy and given I'm neither suicidal nor homicidal I wouldn't even consider driving without them.Although I might now go check if I can still read a plate from 20m after 15 months. Good excuse to go visit Barnard Castle which I understand is the accepted place in the UK to check one's eyesight.
Mr Tidy said:
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.
The Police seem to have a very strange understanding of the word voluntary. I have no idea why they use it in the circumstances they do, as they clearly don't mean it, and it is disingenuous. 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.
People would have more respect if they dropped the 'voluntary' from their wording.
londiscape said:
modellista said:
I know you wear your specs for driving, but it's not "a load of tosh" to require you to do so. If anything, the current standard for driving cars is fairly lenient.
Agreed. I have code 01 on my licence for all permitted vehicle categories making it illegal for me to drive without my glasses, although I don't remember actively telling DVLA of this. Guessing the examiner when I took my test flagged that I was wearing specs and put the code in (same as 78 for automatic). Easy peasy and given I'm neither suicidal nor homicidal I wouldn't even consider driving without them.Although I might now go check if I can still read a plate from 20m after 15 months. Good excuse to go visit Barnard Castle which I understand is the accepted place in the UK to check one's eyesight.
Mont Blanc said:
Mr Tidy said:
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.
The Police seem to have a very strange understanding of the word voluntary. I have no idea why they use it in the circumstances they do, as they clearly don't mean it, and it is disingenuous. 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.
People would have more respect if they dropped the 'voluntary' from their wording.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 14th May 12:03
Pica-Pica said:
modellista said:
briggsy1 said:
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.
To be clear I wear my glasses.
As for the "load of tosh" comment, you have stated you can distinguish between objects "at any distance", which is clearly not correct, all of us have a visual acuity limit - a combination of object size and distance where we just about stop being able to distinguish detail.
If you are a mild myope but require specs to drive, let's say your prescription is -1.00. That means that your eyes are at their sharpest at one metre away, rather than infinity. Beyond a metre, things start to get blurry. Since we consider 6m to be roughly equivalent to infinity, you need to be six times closer to something to see it as clearly as someone without any prescription. The further things are away, the more blurred they are.
For day-to-day tasks that might seem small potatoes, but driving at 75mph on a motorway, things are different. You're covering 100m every three seconds. Without your glasses you need to be six times closer to objects to see them as clearly as someone without specs. Let's say a van has dropped a brick in the road, a small object but with the potential to cause an accident at motorway speeds. For argument's sake, everyone else sees it at 600m away, but you don't see it until you're 100m away. They have 18 seconds to react, you have three.
Hopefully this illustrates the point. Measurements are approximate but in the ball park.
I know you wear your specs for driving, but it's not "a load of tosh" to require you to do so. If anything, the current standard for driving cars is fairly lenient.
‘… Let's say a van has dropped a brick in the road, a small object but with the potential to cause an accident at motorway speeds. For argument's sake, everyone else sees it at 600m away, but you don't see it until you're 100m away. They have 18 seconds to react, you have three.’
is a spurious one and completely unrelated to the ‘20 metre number plate test’. Two completely different aspects of eyesight test.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 14th May 12:02
Graveworm said:
Mont Blanc said:
Mr Tidy said:
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.
The Police seem to have a very strange understanding of the word voluntary. I have no idea why they use it in the circumstances they do, as they clearly don't mean it, and it is disingenuous. 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.
People would have more respect if they dropped the 'voluntary' from their wording.
If you refused to take the 'voluntary' test, what do you think would be the next words out of the mouth of a Police officer?
a) "No problem Sir/Madam, you can go on your way now"
b) "As you have declined the voluntary test, I have reason to suspect that you may be guilty of driving when you cannot comply with the vision requirements, and under Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I require that you submit to a test"
Voluntary means you can refuse something with no further consequences. These tests are not voluntary.
Mont Blanc said:
I absolutely get why they would want to test people, and I have no issue with random testing being carried out on drivers. It is the claim that it is 'voluntary' that I have an issue with.
If you refused to take the 'voluntary' test, what do you think would be the next words out of the mouth of a Police officer?
a) "No problem Sir/Madam, you can go on your way now"
b) "As you have declined the voluntary test, I have reason to suspect that you may be guilty of driving when you cannot comply with the vision requirements, and under Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I require that you submit to a test"
Voluntary means you can refuse something with no further consequences. These tests are not voluntary.
Totally agree with both points.If you refused to take the 'voluntary' test, what do you think would be the next words out of the mouth of a Police officer?
a) "No problem Sir/Madam, you can go on your way now"
b) "As you have declined the voluntary test, I have reason to suspect that you may be guilty of driving when you cannot comply with the vision requirements, and under Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I require that you submit to a test"
Voluntary means you can refuse something with no further consequences. These tests are not voluntary.
Something voluntary is like a satisfaction survey - you can tell them where to put it.
Unsure why plod even use the word tbh, as it seems disengienous at best
Mont Blanc said:
Graveworm said:
Mont Blanc said:
Mr Tidy said:
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.
The Police seem to have a very strange understanding of the word voluntary. I have no idea why they use it in the circumstances they do, as they clearly don't mean it, and it is disingenuous. 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.
People would have more respect if they dropped the 'voluntary' from their wording.
If you refused to take the 'voluntary' test, what do you think would be the next words out of the mouth of a Police officer?
a) "No problem Sir/Madam, you can go on your way now"
b) "As you have declined the voluntary test, I have reason to suspect that you may be guilty of driving when you cannot comply with the vision requirements, and under Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I require that you submit to a test"
Voluntary means you can refuse something with no further consequences. These tests are not voluntary.
In this case it is a different distinction. It's voluntary in as much as, take a voluntary test and if you fail then the only consequence is now you know, get it sorted and that's all or refuse, take a compulsory test, fail that and face more severe consequences.
There are similar examples, If you refuse to attend a police station, for a voluntary interview then that can lead to your arrest for a compulsory interview. It's even one of the conditions for obtaining some warrants and production orders that the person with the information is unlikely to or has refused give it up voluntarily.
Graveworm said:
I don't accept your premise, voluntary to me and the dictionary means you do something without being forced. it neither means you can't face any consequences as a result nor that you can't voluntarily do something that you could otherwise be forced to do. c.v voluntary redundancy etc.
In this case it is a different distinction. It's voluntary in as much as, take a voluntary test and if you fail then the only consequence is now you know, get it sorted and that's all or refuse, take a compulsory test, fail that and face more severe consequences.
There are similar examples, If you refuse to attend a police station, for a voluntary interview then that can lead to your arrest for a compulsory interview. It's even one of the conditions for obtaining some warrants and production orders that the person with the information is unlikely to or has refused give it up voluntarily.
The voluntary interview example (as per the other long running thread) is a prime example. In this case it is a different distinction. It's voluntary in as much as, take a voluntary test and if you fail then the only consequence is now you know, get it sorted and that's all or refuse, take a compulsory test, fail that and face more severe consequences.
There are similar examples, If you refuse to attend a police station, for a voluntary interview then that can lead to your arrest for a compulsory interview. It's even one of the conditions for obtaining some warrants and production orders that the person with the information is unlikely to or has refused give it up voluntarily.
It isn't voluntary either, as was discussed in that thread. You have to attend an interview, whether that be at a time of your choosing or not, or you will likely be arrested and forced to be interviewed. Either way, you have to be interviewed. That isn't voluntary.
If the interview was genuinely voluntary, as per the dictionary definition "of one's own free will" you could simply say you did not wish to be interviewed at all, ever, regarding that matter, and that would be the end of it.
The term "Voluntary roadside eye tests" clearly gives the impression that you can simply refuse to take the test, with zero consequences or follow up. We both know that is not true. You can refuse to take the test, but the Police will then proceed to make you take the test as refusal will give grounds for suspicion that you are in breach of the Road Traffic Act.
The Police are free to claim that they are using the word voluntary 'in a different distinction' but that is not helpful at all to the public, who would much rather have plain English. "We are conducting roadside eyesight tests" would be perfectly fine, and not misleading. They could still use their discretion whether to give words or advice or ticket.
If the police dropped the 'voluntary' from their language, for eyesight and alcohol breath tests, and for interviews, it would be easier for the public to understand. Look at how much confusion there was in the 'voluntary interview' thread regarding if the interview was indeed compulsory or not.
If I approached something named a "voluntary roadside test" I would fully expect to be able to refuse the rest, and be allowed on my way.
Edited to add: It is what it is, it doesn't affect me, but I just thought it was an interesting point about the use of language, as do others by the looks of it. I've had my moan and now I shall get on with my day!
Edited by Mont Blanc on Tuesday 14th May 15:44
Mont Blanc said:
Graveworm said:
I don't accept your premise, voluntary to me and the dictionary means you do something without being forced. it neither means you can't face any consequences as a result nor that you can't voluntarily do something that you could otherwise be forced to do. c.v voluntary redundancy etc.
In this case it is a different distinction. It's voluntary in as much as, take a voluntary test and if you fail then the only consequence is now you know, get it sorted and that's all or refuse, take a compulsory test, fail that and face more severe consequences.
There are similar examples, If you refuse to attend a police station, for a voluntary interview then that can lead to your arrest for a compulsory interview. It's even one of the conditions for obtaining some warrants and production orders that the person with the information is unlikely to or has refused give it up voluntarily.
The voluntary interview example (as per the other long running thread) is a prime example. In this case it is a different distinction. It's voluntary in as much as, take a voluntary test and if you fail then the only consequence is now you know, get it sorted and that's all or refuse, take a compulsory test, fail that and face more severe consequences.
There are similar examples, If you refuse to attend a police station, for a voluntary interview then that can lead to your arrest for a compulsory interview. It's even one of the conditions for obtaining some warrants and production orders that the person with the information is unlikely to or has refused give it up voluntarily.
It isn't voluntary either, as was discussed in that thread. You have to attend an interview, whether that be at a time of your choosing or not, or you will likely be arrested and forced to be interviewed. Either way, you have to be interviewed. That isn't voluntary.
If the interview was genuinely voluntary, as per the dictionary definition "of one's own free will" you could simply say you did not wish to be interviewed at all, ever, regarding that matter, and that would be the end of it.
The term "Voluntary roadside eye tests" clearly gives the impression that you can simply refuse to take the test, with zero consequences or follow up. We both know that is not true. You can refuse to take the test, but the Police will then proceed to make you take the test as refusal will give grounds for suspicion that you are in breach of the Road Traffic Act.
The Police are free to claim that they are using the word voluntary 'in a different distinction' but that is not helpful at all to the public, who would much rather have plain English. "We are conducting roadside eyesight tests" would be perfectly fine, and not misleading. They could still use their discretion whether to give words or advice or ticket.
If the police dropped the 'voluntary' from their language, for eyesight and alcohol breath tests, and for interviews, it would be easier for the public to understand. Look at how much confusion there was in the 'voluntary interview' thread regarding if the interview was indeed compulsory or not.
If I approached something named a "voluntary roadside test" I would fully expect to be able to refuse the rest, and be allowed on my way.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff