Safe Speed Forums

The latest ploy to get us off the roads is eyesight tests. Whilst I am not advocating that the entirely blind should drive it puzzles me that seeing a number plate at 40 feet or yards or metres or whatever should be a prerequsite to pass a driving test. One should be able to judge the position of objects in the road by their outline shape not whether they are in focus or not. It's never given me any problems. As most road signs are now hidden behind overgrown vegetation being able to see them with good eyesight is a miracle.

I hope you're not suggesting you can't read a number plate at 67 feet. I would have thought that was a bare minimum for having good enough eyesight for driving - and one that can be passed with little or no peripheral vision.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I'm very concerned about the risks of poor peripheral vision, but I'm not at all convinced about the numberplate test representing a minimum standard.

After all, neither of us could pass the number plate test in heavy rain, but that does not make us crash. Instead we adjust our plans to available vision.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But compound the degradation caused by the rain and poor vision and the driver performance is worse that that of a driver who has normal vision. You really struggle with compounded factors don't you!

_________________
It's Champion Man

Steve, you are a character aren't you?

The limitations to vision do not "compound" in the range that we're talking about. Anyway normal responsible motorists are still capable of moving a car around safely even if vision is reduced to 10 or 15 yards fog.

So what if someone else can see better or worse than we can? The question has to be, "Can this individual see well enough to drive safely?".

I don't dispute the number plate test as a rough guide, but it sure as hell isn't an absolute limit to safe driving.

A decent eye test, especially with a test of peripheral vision and night vision might well be closer.

[edited to correct "feet" to "yards"]

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

To amplify Paul's point, my father when he was alive and driving suffered from degenrative ey problems. If truth be known he could not have passed the statutory eyesight test for the last 20 years of his motoring life. however, he cut his cloth according to his capability. He stopped using fast roads as he recognised his inability to focus on things too far away. He had door mirrors fitted to his 1961 mini to increase his peripheral vision capability and in the last 10 years stuck to his well-trodden path of driving his surviving spouse to and from work. He was not complacent, did not speed, maintained the car well, and was particularly careful and observant at the hazard spots on this route - something around 2 1/2 miles round trip, including negotiating one major road junction and two minor crossroads.

He drove for the air force during WW2 and I believe I am right in saying never had so much as a dink on any of his cars right up until when he stopped driving in circa 1990.

Did I feel safe with him in his last 10 years of driving? Yes - on those roads. I also reassured him with some timely observations about things way ahead. did he feel safe with me driving? Probably not - but he tristed me. I believe the risks were about the same. I probably exceeded the speed limit - but I couldn't confirm that as my eyes were not on the dial.

I am suitably proud of my oldest Brother, he had a detached retina, and stopped driving without being told to, until it had been welded back into place and he was confident(with agreement of his Doctor) that he was OK to drive again.
He then developed further problems with his eyes, when he realised the severity of the condition, he sent his licence back to DVLA and told them to cancel it, once again without being told to by his Doctor.
This was a crying shame, because he loved driving, particularly motorbikes.

While I was serving in Germany with the Forces, the BAOR Road Safety team had a tabletop machine that tested your vision, both acuity and peripheral, and it tested under daytime and nighttime conditions, it told me I needed to see an optician.

I would like to see this sort of machine in general use in this country.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I have often heard about people driving with bad eyesight and I do think a mandatory check should be made every so often by an optician to identify any correctable problems. As a car driver and motorcyclist I do not have to take any such test whatsoever. All I am required to do at age 70, is declare myself fit to drive. As an HGV driver I have to take a medical every 5 years after age 45 which includes an eye test.

Seems like a good idea to me. I developed a problem in one eye and after a visit to the optician I was informed I needed glasses to meet the vision standard for driving a truck..... but I could continue to drive a car without them

Can anyone tell me it is safe to drive a car or motorcycle with defective eyesight but not a truck? Surely the standard should be the same for both.

As for the prescribed glasses, they are fantastic. If anyone is has any doubts about their eyesight they should visit their optician to have it rectified. Its a shame its left to the concientious individual to do this though.

A requirement for a regular eye test for drivers could well be a reasonably effective proxy for actual retesting, and I don't think strong objections would be raised to it.

However, I'm not convinced that poor vision (below the legal requirement) is a significant cause of road accidents.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Couldn't agree more, most often it is poor use of the eyes that causes the accident

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

A little story from the eye fairy.

I purchased a new BMW M3 in 1994, took delivery in Germany and drove through Europe at speeds up to 250kph (160mph) without any problems. I then shipped my car back to Australia and drove for a couple of weeks before loaning my car to my closest friend while I travelled interstate for a week. The next day he called me to ask what colour I wanted my next car. He was not joking, he had managed to write-off my new BMW.

He has terrible eyesight but wears corrective glasses and is technically legally allowed to drive. The problem was that the glasses were so thick that when he looked over his shoulder when exiting a car park onto the main road that a car travelling at about 50mph actually dissappeared into the rim of his glasses and he thought the road was clear. He found this out later by going back to the spot and reconstructing the crash. The weather was perfect, it was the middle of the day and everything was right in the world.... until he moved out of the car park.

There is a point where vision impairment is a risk and I believe he has reached it, but he continues to drive. His solution..... he bought a Toyota Land Cruiser so that he is higher up to have a better view, and of course in a better position to kill someone with that weapon.

He is still my closest friend but I wish he would stop driving...

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

You may be right. However, the particular proble to which you refer - spectacle frames (or for that matter, any other obstacle that creates tunnel vision/blind spots) can be compensated for to a very large degree. Paul has placed a very relevant set of comments, backed by experiment/video http://www.safespeed.org.uk/smidsy.html

This refers to the large pilar blind spot, but the principles apply here too.

I definitely recommend a convex (or partially convex) door mirror. Also, although they are old fasioned, a wing mirror can make a world of difference to mitigate against tunnel vision.

Problem is that he was at about 45 degrees to the main road and so mirrors were of no value to him. They could not adjust that far across and he could not turn far enough to see without the rims blocking his "good" eye.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Seems that new standards are on the way--

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/medical/ ... recall.htm

visual field defect.

I definitely agree with you on this Paul, as peripheral vision is a potential life saver, acting as a sort of 'spidey sense'
As for night vision, I never really knew until I joined the police about night blindness. I first came across this in a colleuge, who at night was totally unable to judge distance, or take in rapid information. This lead to me driving a lot on night shifts.

I've just had an eye exam, and have the minimum standard of vision for driving without glasses. I do however wear glasses when I drive, as it sharpens up index numbers, and enables me to easier to identify my naughty clients

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

There must be countless thousands of drivers out there with 'defective vision'............



..........Due to the fact that they're being 'robbed blind' by the scamshitters !




I 'see' ( ) the 'Professional Liars' have reappeared !

And we don't need glasses to 'see' what their objectives are !

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

I agree with Hanbo. Doesn't the Highway Code state that it's illegal to drive with uncorrected defective vision?

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

This is something I worry about when wearing my glasses. I usually wear contacts but on the occasions I have to don the old goggles I am very much aware of the blind area beyond that little glass circle. Driving suddenly requires much head turning. And I don't have a very heavy prescription (-4).

I did once lose a contact while driving......

........a single seater round Oulton Park in the rain! Made it damn difficult to see those little cones!

After getting to the car ,aided by my white stick, i find that i can drive at 70-80 down the M6 WITHOUT TOO MANY PROBLEMS - trouble is those blue signs have poor writing and those idiots in estates with yellow stripes and blue lights keep getting in way.

Extractum pices est.