RE: One-third of drivers can't see properly
Wednesday 27th October 2004
One-third of drivers can't see properly
Report finds many drivers can't see the inside lane
A third of drivers could be breaking the law and putting themselves and others in danger by driving with poor eyesight according to new research published today.
The report, The Road Ahead, launched today by RNIB reveals that a third of all drivers, 13 million people, are not having their eyes tested regularly. Therefore any changes in vision, including not being able to see road signs clearly or wearing the wrong glasses for driving, are going unchecked.
The report includes additional research from Warwick University on people who don’t wear glasses. This showed that of the one in three people who failed a basic eye chart test, 65 per cent were drivers. Furthermore, 33 per cent of the total sample who failed said they were not surprised as they had suspected their sight was not perfect.
RNIB recommends everyone has an eye test every two years and urges people to think of it as a full MOT for their eyes.
And when they've done that, they'll be able to see the inside lane and maybe even their indicator stalks more easily. Who knows, it could be the first step towards actually using them…
Discussion
I'm not surprised by these findings.
Pilots have to take a regular medical which includes eyesight at regular intervals. I don't see why insurance companies don't insist on a similar certificate before they will insure you. You never know it may reduce premiums for those of us who can see.
Oh ok probably not
Pilots have to take a regular medical which includes eyesight at regular intervals. I don't see why insurance companies don't insist on a similar certificate before they will insure you. You never know it may reduce premiums for those of us who can see.
Oh ok probably not
I dare say there are some problems with drivers' eyesight.
But the claimed scale of the problem in this news report is just nonsense.
We have a legal requirement for drivers' eyesight, but it isn't a helpful, useful or realistic standard. Just think: NONE of us could pass the drivers' eyesight test in condition of poor visibility. Does we crash or take risks in conditions of poor visibility? Nope. We adapt to available vision.
Much more worrying is that there's no test of peripheral vision. We need peripheral vision to drive safely.
The article is just puff.
But the claimed scale of the problem in this news report is just nonsense.
We have a legal requirement for drivers' eyesight, but it isn't a helpful, useful or realistic standard. Just think: NONE of us could pass the drivers' eyesight test in condition of poor visibility. Does we crash or take risks in conditions of poor visibility? Nope. We adapt to available vision.
Much more worrying is that there's no test of peripheral vision. We need peripheral vision to drive safely.
The article is just puff.
More statistical bullshit and scaremongering.
It may well be true that one third of motorists have not had a recent eyetest, but it does not follow that all of those 'can't see properly'. The majority (well, hopefully not just the minority) will have acceptable vision, but have not had a recent test to verify that.
Not saying that there isn't a problem with drivers having poor eyesight, but the RNIB must be hoping we are all blind to the facts. Or was this put out by the opticians that wish to make some extra money from tests?
It may well be true that one third of motorists have not had a recent eyetest, but it does not follow that all of those 'can't see properly'. The majority (well, hopefully not just the minority) will have acceptable vision, but have not had a recent test to verify that.
Not saying that there isn't a problem with drivers having poor eyesight, but the RNIB must be hoping we are all blind to the facts. Or was this put out by the opticians that wish to make some extra money from tests?
How about all motorists having to take compulsary eyetests?
This could be paid for by using some our motoring taxes - we should get something back in return. Just present the licence for a free test or get a voucher with the tax disc.
If so many drivers have eyesight as bad as that stated in the report a free scheme would pay for it'self pretty quickly in terms of A&E savings.
I have always suspected those people crawling along at 40 in an NSL can't see where they are going.
This could be paid for by using some our motoring taxes - we should get something back in return. Just present the licence for a free test or get a voucher with the tax disc.
If so many drivers have eyesight as bad as that stated in the report a free scheme would pay for it'self pretty quickly in terms of A&E savings.
I have always suspected those people crawling along at 40 in an NSL can't see where they are going.
I had mine tested recently and was very suprised when I was told I was on the borderline,and it was recommended I get a set of goggles for driving (although half of me thinks that Opticians will always try and get you to wear a set) and I must say that my eyesight improved drastically, went to 6/6 (higher than 20/20). I think that most people do not even realise that there eyesight is failing, as it's so gradual you get used to it. It's not so much the object but the detail. I have to also admit that their statements are a bit alarmist, and saying that there huge amounts of motorists that can't even see distant lanes in their periphery sounds a bit daft. On the other hand, there are enough muppet drivers out there to make me believe that most of them are blind.
Going back to my previous comment I do think it a good idea that people should get there eyes tested every 2 years though as there are probably loads out there who would fail a test especially at long distance.
JK
Going back to my previous comment I do think it a good idea that people should get there eyes tested every 2 years though as there are probably loads out there who would fail a test especially at long distance.
JK
rutthenut said:
More statistical bullshit and scaremongering.
It may well be true that one third of motorists have not had a recent eyetest, but it does not follow that all of those 'can't see properly'. The majority (well, hopefully not just the minority) will have acceptable vision, but have not had a recent test to verify that.
Sorry but read the article (perhaps you need glasses
) Normally I'd be first in the queue to shout lies damn lies and statisics.. RNIDResearch said:
OF THE 1 IN 3 PEOPLE WHO FAILED A REGULAR EYE TEST 65% WERE DRIVERS.
The only debatable in this statement is what about the sample - is it representative of the population as a whole and large enough to be a reliable indicator of the population at large.
This is truly scary, but not suprising in the least...
mr_tony said:
OF THE 1 IN 3 PEOPLE WHO FAILED A REGULAR EYE TEST 65% WERE DRIVERS.
The only debatable in this statement is what about the sample - is it representative of the population as a whole and large enough to be a reliable indicator of the population at large.
Errr... Where does it say that? How do you "fail" an eye test? Did they fail the driver's eye test?
safespeed said:Come on now Paul, don't be pedantic. It does NOT state the size of the sample.
RNIDResearch said:
OF THE 1 IN 3 PEOPLE WHO FAILED A REGULAR EYE TEST 65% WERE DRIVERS.
The only debatable in this statement is what about the sample - is it representative of the population as a whole and large enough to be a reliable indicator of the population at large.
Errr... Where does it say that? How do you "fail" an eye test? Did they fail the driver's eye test?
If it was 300 people, 100 failed the test. Of this 100, 65 would have been drivers.
How old were these people? What age groups? Was it a valid cross section of the UK population?
But no, just some meaningless statistics.
This is something I've been saying for a long time & after speaking about it to an optician friend who said & I quote.
About 70% of new customers who come into the opticians for an eyetest fail the basic driving equivelant. Of these 90% are drivers.
YOu can spot drivers who can't see a mile away, they follow the kirb, drive erraticly & very slowly. Basicly it's like driving in fog.
I would agree that 30% of drivers can't see properly either night or day.
About 70% of new customers who come into the opticians for an eyetest fail the basic driving equivelant. Of these 90% are drivers.
YOu can spot drivers who can't see a mile away, they follow the kirb, drive erraticly & very slowly. Basicly it's like driving in fog.
I would agree that 30% of drivers can't see properly either night or day.
Its scary how many people are unfit to drive.
One of my grandmas was legally blind and still we had to practically force the licence from her, the other grandma was never a great driver anyway (jumped almost every curb, would drive around the block to avoid any mildly difficult parking) and was almost considering driving despite having eye surgery on one eye the previous day and the other eye still full of catarachts!
Then there is our nutter neighbour, who not only is completely unfit to drive, mentally and physically, but his cars are usually dangerously undermained as well. I doubt whether he can see either as he suffers from very bad diabetes and refuses to listen to any doctors advice.
Amazingly none of these people have been in accidents, yet it wouldnt suprise me if they caused some! And insurance companies think older drivers are a safer risk! (yes i am aware that they are a safer risk statistically speaking...)
One of my grandmas was legally blind and still we had to practically force the licence from her, the other grandma was never a great driver anyway (jumped almost every curb, would drive around the block to avoid any mildly difficult parking) and was almost considering driving despite having eye surgery on one eye the previous day and the other eye still full of catarachts!
Then there is our nutter neighbour, who not only is completely unfit to drive, mentally and physically, but his cars are usually dangerously undermained as well. I doubt whether he can see either as he suffers from very bad diabetes and refuses to listen to any doctors advice.
Amazingly none of these people have been in accidents, yet it wouldnt suprise me if they caused some! And insurance companies think older drivers are a safer risk! (yes i am aware that they are a safer risk statistically speaking...)
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff