Sorry mate I didn't see you........
Discussion
"Sorry mate I didn't see you" (SMIDSY) or "Looked but failed to see" (LBFTS) crashes are commonplace. Around 20% of all crashes have LBFTS recorded as a causation factor. However very few of these are thought to be anything to do with poor eyesight. See:
www.safespeed.org.uk/smidsy.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/smidsy.html
SS - tried to look at your website but not loading..
Is there any way to tell if these 20% are nothing to do with eyesight unless a physical eye examination is performed? Surely if peoples eyesight is not upto the job then we only have their word for it.. come to think of it, when you renew your licence you only need tick a box to say you can see ok which I bet most lie about, based on my late Grandfather who openly admitted being unable to see very well when driving - we were so worried we called the Police who told us that it was his responsibility. Personally I think it is serious enough to warrant further investigation into how it can be addressed..
Is there any way to tell if these 20% are nothing to do with eyesight unless a physical eye examination is performed? Surely if peoples eyesight is not upto the job then we only have their word for it.. come to think of it, when you renew your licence you only need tick a box to say you can see ok which I bet most lie about, based on my late Grandfather who openly admitted being unable to see very well when driving - we were so worried we called the Police who told us that it was his responsibility. Personally I think it is serious enough to warrant further investigation into how it can be addressed..
seamus said:
SS - tried to look at your website but not loading..
I can't explain that. Everything is working fine with no reported problems. What does "not loading" mean?
seamus said:
Is there any way to tell if these 20% are nothing to do with eyesight unless a physical eye examination is performed? Surely if peoples eyesight is not upto the job then we only have their word for it.. come to think of it, when you renew your licence you only need tick a box to say you can see ok which I bet most lie about, based on my late Grandfather who openly admitted being unable to see very well when driving - we were so worried we called the Police who told us that it was his responsibility. Personally I think it is serious enough to warrant further investigation into how it can be addressed..
I'm quite sure that bad eyesight is a real road safety issue. I don't believe that it's a large scale road safety issue. Everytime it comes up the figures relate to eyesight standards, not crashes. In fact it's almost off the bottom of the scale as a crash contributory factor. I believe that this is because it's perfectly possible to drive safely with bad vision - as we all do when it's foggy...
Streetcop said:
Paul..
Don't tell me you're happy with Mr Magoo types driving around, in addition to Indi 500 type speeds..?
Street
Yeah Yeah. Or rather, no, of course I'm not.
The common factor of course is that we need to go after real and common causes of road dangers, rather than imaginary or infrequent ones.
I'd like to see information and resources allocated in matching proportion to the best contributory factor information we can lay our hands on.
Like this:
www.safespeed.org.uk/pr110.html
Contains (with source references) :
Inattention 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed 22.6%
Looked but did not see 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless 18.4%
Failed to look 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path 13.7%
Excessive speed 12.5%
"Excessive speed" includes both "speed in excess of the speed limit" and "inappropriate speed for the conditions". Data from Avon and Somerset - the only such data available in the UK - warns us that 70% of these "excessive speed accidents" take place entirely within the speed limit. We should therefore assume that in all probability only some 3.75% of our road accidents involve exceeding a speed limit.
I realise that different contributory factors have different associated cost effectiveness values, but the broad-brush priorities really need to be the real causes of crashes.
The thing that gets me is the only test is reading a number plate from 20.5 meters. (On my test it was closer to 10!). Then they say driving with defective vision can be £1000 fine. Whats defective vision? My left eye is defective (and not correctable with glasses), but my right eye is in tip top condition. Hence I can read number plates easly at 20.5 meters, but do I have defective vision?
not seeing but having good eyesight is not uncommon.
If you are not expecting to see something you are unlikely recognise it (see it) in a quick glance or if you dont allow your eyes to focus and actively search the area.
Ie bikes. For pure car drivers Bikes they are harder to see when you are expecting to see a car. so when you quickly look and dont see a car you may go despite thire being a m.bike which you did not pick up on.
How many times do you lose something on a desk and cant find it for ages despite it being right in front of your eyes? A few times a year I bet.
When under pressure, you want to see a clear road and it is very easy to 'not see' something you were not expecting of if you do not allow your eyes enough time to focus and search the direction you are looking in.
A good point when im out'helping ' peops with their driving is to say aloud 'bike' as the approach a junction. It focuses the mind and eyes.
If you are not expecting to see something you are unlikely recognise it (see it) in a quick glance or if you dont allow your eyes to focus and actively search the area.
Ie bikes. For pure car drivers Bikes they are harder to see when you are expecting to see a car. so when you quickly look and dont see a car you may go despite thire being a m.bike which you did not pick up on.
How many times do you lose something on a desk and cant find it for ages despite it being right in front of your eyes? A few times a year I bet.
When under pressure, you want to see a clear road and it is very easy to 'not see' something you were not expecting of if you do not allow your eyes enough time to focus and search the direction you are looking in.
A good point when im out'helping ' peops with their driving is to say aloud 'bike' as the approach a junction. It focuses the mind and eyes.
Munter said:
The thing that gets me is the only test is reading a number plate from 20.5 meters. (On my test it was closer to 10!). Then they say driving with defective vision can be £1000 fine. Whats defective vision? My left eye is defective (and not correctable with glasses), but my right eye is in tip top condition. Hence I can read number plates easly at 20.5 meters, but do I have defective vision?
I have a similar problem, though it's my right eye that doesn't work and my left eye does need glasses. Neither car test nor bike test examiners objected. I reckon we have defective vision as defined by any normal measure, but not as defined by driving regulations. Is it dangerous? Not particularly in this instance. I find right-shoulder lifesavers awkward, but it can be worked around. The rest of the time, when driving you're looking at things which are beyond the range at which binocular vision provides an advantage, so it doesn't make any difference. Conditions like tunnel vision, which would also pass the numberplate test, are much more of a problem.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff