Poor sight hampers young drivers (BBC News)
Discussion
That's interesting especially since younger drivers would have had their sight tested, as part of the driving test standard, fairly recently. Things can change of course but for how many people would it be that quickly?
On the other hand it's a survey and they are only claiming 15% and presumably that is 15% of not the entire 3000 people so the real significance of this may be less than it appears.
Confusion reading road signs may be a response I too would give, though mainly because there seem to be far more than needed these days, with many poorly positioned and badly maintained.
The eyesight question is important and I suspecrt not nearly as clear cut as it might appear. For example I have had the same prescription for mild short sight since my teens and have always felt more comfortable driving with correction to the point where I have never driven for more than a few seconds at a time without it. I bet that, even now some years on and with a few decades of staring at computer monitors, I could still pass the driving test eye assessment. In fact recently in bright sunshine (OK, back in July
) the difference between with and without correction has seemed minimal.
Except in one area - reading the instruments - where no correction is much better! So for speedo checking no correction means a faster reading of the dial. Hmm.
Why is this?
Well with age the ability to focus at different distances changes (hence reading glasses being relatively common). Close work for me (closer than reading distance) now requires assistance most of the time. Longer distances, with or without correction do not represent a focus problem per se BUT the SPEED of FOCUS I can achieve is reduced. SO whereas, by way of example, years ago I could easily read the number plate of an approaching vehicle on the other side of a motorway at a typical closing speed of around 170 mph, these days I don't expect to do it at a closing speed of 140 or less. The rate of change of distance required is too great.
Actually it is more evident even at lower speeds. For example debris on the road. I can see it well enough to avoid it as has always been the case. However in former times I would have been able to assess it well enough to know what it was on nearly every occasion (assuming is was not disguised in some way). Now I am less able to do that so a decision about the potential for danger or damage if I run over the object is easier in some ways - always avoid - but might lead to some unnecessary manoeuvres.
Of course the roadsign problems are no easier with marginally slower re-focussing combined with the number of the darned things so often employed. Oddly the problem seems to be less, from the few experiments I have tried, without correction. Work that one out.
Whether that level of detail observation is important to safer driving I don't know. I don't think so, other than when at a limit of progress that is mostly unwise to attempt on the roads. However I will continue to assess that position as time passes.
Thinking about this has, I believe, helped me to better understand some of the less easily identifiable dangers on the roads. For example the assumption that others can actually see well enough to know what is going on. Often I suspect they cannot, even with prescription lenses. But that is something we need to allow for. If perfect eyesight was required there would not be enough drivers around to operate our basic transport requirements let alone provide for private motoring.
As a final observation - it's not just the eyes that matter.
I used to work with a guy who, after an impromptu eye test one day, was advised that he was quite short sighted in one eye and quite long sighted in the other. However with both eyes working together his brain sorted out the signals and gave him 20:20 vision. Apparently.
Things are clearly not as clear as they seem.
There is definitely more to this then, er, meets the eye.
On the other hand it's a survey and they are only claiming 15% and presumably that is 15% of not the entire 3000 people so the real significance of this may be less than it appears.
Confusion reading road signs may be a response I too would give, though mainly because there seem to be far more than needed these days, with many poorly positioned and badly maintained.
The eyesight question is important and I suspecrt not nearly as clear cut as it might appear. For example I have had the same prescription for mild short sight since my teens and have always felt more comfortable driving with correction to the point where I have never driven for more than a few seconds at a time without it. I bet that, even now some years on and with a few decades of staring at computer monitors, I could still pass the driving test eye assessment. In fact recently in bright sunshine (OK, back in July
) the difference between with and without correction has seemed minimal. Except in one area - reading the instruments - where no correction is much better! So for speedo checking no correction means a faster reading of the dial. Hmm.
Why is this?
Well with age the ability to focus at different distances changes (hence reading glasses being relatively common). Close work for me (closer than reading distance) now requires assistance most of the time. Longer distances, with or without correction do not represent a focus problem per se BUT the SPEED of FOCUS I can achieve is reduced. SO whereas, by way of example, years ago I could easily read the number plate of an approaching vehicle on the other side of a motorway at a typical closing speed of around 170 mph, these days I don't expect to do it at a closing speed of 140 or less. The rate of change of distance required is too great.
Actually it is more evident even at lower speeds. For example debris on the road. I can see it well enough to avoid it as has always been the case. However in former times I would have been able to assess it well enough to know what it was on nearly every occasion (assuming is was not disguised in some way). Now I am less able to do that so a decision about the potential for danger or damage if I run over the object is easier in some ways - always avoid - but might lead to some unnecessary manoeuvres.
Of course the roadsign problems are no easier with marginally slower re-focussing combined with the number of the darned things so often employed. Oddly the problem seems to be less, from the few experiments I have tried, without correction. Work that one out.
Whether that level of detail observation is important to safer driving I don't know. I don't think so, other than when at a limit of progress that is mostly unwise to attempt on the roads. However I will continue to assess that position as time passes.
Thinking about this has, I believe, helped me to better understand some of the less easily identifiable dangers on the roads. For example the assumption that others can actually see well enough to know what is going on. Often I suspect they cannot, even with prescription lenses. But that is something we need to allow for. If perfect eyesight was required there would not be enough drivers around to operate our basic transport requirements let alone provide for private motoring.
As a final observation - it's not just the eyes that matter.
I used to work with a guy who, after an impromptu eye test one day, was advised that he was quite short sighted in one eye and quite long sighted in the other. However with both eyes working together his brain sorted out the signals and gave him 20:20 vision. Apparently.
Things are clearly not as clear as they seem.
There is definitely more to this then, er, meets the eye.
LongQ said:
Except in one area - reading the instruments - where no correction is much better! So for speedo checking no correction means a faster reading of the dial. Hmm.
As short sighted people (poor long distance vision) get older their eyesight worsens and the correction is strengthened. Each strengthening leads to poorer long sightedness (reading) to the extent that short sighted People with contact lenses will need glasses on top of them to read. Apparently alot of them then choose to wear only one lense for distance correction, allowing the other eye to focus on near objects.
BTW did anyone notice this:
BBC propaganda said:
The Department for Transport is meeting its 10-year safety target of cutting the number of road accident deaths and injuries to 40% of the 1994-98 average - which saw a total of 319,928 casualties.
Is "to 40% of the 1994-98 average" correct? I thought it was by 40% not to 40%.
Edited by deeps on Sunday 3rd September 16:01
deeps said:
As short sighted people (poor long distance vision) get older their eyesight worsens and the correction is strengthened. Each strengthening leads to poorer long sightedness (reading)
Not strictly true, myopia does not (necessarily) increase with age. The loss of close vision (presbyopia) is due to the eyes muscles inability to move the increasing bulk of the aging lens.
The loss of close vision happens to everyone at about the same age. It's just that myopes can remove their specatcles and see close to. If a longsighted person (hyperope) removes their spectacles the close vision gets worse.
voyds9 said:
deeps said:
As short sighted people (poor long distance vision) get older their eyesight worsens and the correction is strengthened. Each strengthening leads to poorer long sightedness (reading)
Not strictly true, myopia does not (necessarily) increase with age. The loss of close vision (presbyopia) is due to the eyes muscles inability to move the increasing bulk of the aging lens.
The loss of close vision happens to everyone at about the same age. It's just that myopes can remove their specatcles and see close to. If a longsighted person (hyperope) removes their spectacles the close vision gets worse.
At what age does the loss of close vision usually kick in? I assume that it doesn't actually happen to everyone, or does it?
Also, why is there increasing bulk in an ageing lense? Also, does longsighted correction affect distance sight in the same way as short sighted correction affects close sight?
Have eyes tested every two years. So far .. do not need glasses. 
Mad Doc needs for reading but otherwise - his sight ist fine.
But eyes are a muscle und we need to beware of long term stare at computer screens und exposure to bright lights.. und even a welding torch can damage eye surface. If you are suddenly sensitive to light.. find your eyes smarting or watering or redness after some exposure to such brightness.. then do not panic. Bathe eye in Optrex sensitive or a Roche "over the counter" eye bath product or cooled boiled water with just a teaspoon of milk. (so long as not allergic to dairy produce ) ..cover with eye pad und try to get someone to take to A&E or better an Eye Hospital Emergency dept (usually found in University towns which offer opthalmics etc .. as degrees..)
They will prescribe drops to place in eye to repair the surface damage.
DO also visit optician regularly. Mine takes a photo of my retina und eyball und explains to me what ist what in the eye socket... He charge an extra £15 for this service und ist on my optical records. I think money well spent.
I have to say that there are some very cool specs on market these days und I would not be fazed if I had to wear such cool eye "adornment"
Mad Doc needs for reading but otherwise - his sight ist fine. But eyes are a muscle und we need to beware of long term stare at computer screens und exposure to bright lights.. und even a welding torch can damage eye surface. If you are suddenly sensitive to light.. find your eyes smarting or watering or redness after some exposure to such brightness.. then do not panic. Bathe eye in Optrex sensitive or a Roche "over the counter" eye bath product
or cooled boiled water with just a teaspoon of milk. (so long as not allergic to dairy produce ) ..cover with eye pad und try to get someone to take to A&E or better an Eye Hospital Emergency dept (usually found in University towns which offer opthalmics etc .. as degrees..) They will prescribe drops to place in eye to repair the surface damage.
DO also visit optician regularly. Mine takes a photo of my retina und eyball und explains to me what ist what in the eye socket... He charge an extra £15 for this service und ist on my optical records. I think money well spent.
I have to say that there are some very cool specs on market these days und I would not be fazed if I had to wear such cool eye "adornment"
WildCat said:
I have to say that there are some very cool specs on market these days und I would not be fazed if I had to wear such cool eye "adornment"
Now that you mention it I can think of a number of people whose appearance is infinitely improved, imho, by being partially disguised behind eyewear.
And a few more would should consider the option even if they have 20:20 vision.
I could be one of them of course - self judgement is rarely objective!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff