Safe Speed Forums

It is reasonable to suspect that many of those who engage in motoring forums are very well versed in the technical details of driving. I don't presume that all the driving population is so well versed in these matters as us (there is life outside of forums), especially those who passed their test 69 years ago.

Only 1/3 of adults have 2020 vision, hence the other 2/3s technically has 'defective vision'.

I say again: the charge of dangerous driving need not apply because other competent drivers voiced concerns about the visibility of the victims.

Yes, so long as the bar is set reasonably.

So why were three penalty points awarded? There must have been a second charge of simple careless driving.

The judge criticised the prosecution for pursuing the case when its own expert witness had said the women had been "reckless" for being in the road.

"I take the view that since the prosecution expert witness told them that the victims had been reckless it was no longer in the public interest," the judge said.

He praised Hampshire for "accepting some responsibility" as an act of "proper remorse" and added: "The act of conviction is punishment enough". He refused to disqualify him from driving, imposing three penalty points "to mark the conviction".

Witness Neil Tyrell, driving in the opposite direction, had seen another car swerve "for no apparent reason" seconds before the crash - only later realising there were two women in the road.

Rachael Harrison, prosecuting, told the court Hampshire was later diagnosed with a cataract, which would have made his eyesight "foggy or hazy" - and at night could have rendered objects invisible.

Miss Harrison said Hampshire was driving from the casino on Ecclesall Road towards Woodseats, and that the accident happened at around 10pm at the crossroads on Abbey Lane, beyond The Beauchief Hotel, which Fiona and Kay had just left.

Fiona had spina bifida, while Kay has learning difficulties.

Miss Harrison said the wheelchair was made of black metal, and was not fitted with lights or reflectors.

"They crossed over the carriageway and, rather than continue onto the pavement, came onto the carriageway," she said.

In a statement, witness Daniel Moonman, who was travelling in the opposite direction to Hampshire, said he saw "two figures" - one in a wheelchair - in a "pool of darkness".

Miss Harrison said Mr Tyrell was driving two or three car lengths behind Hampshire.

allows the court to find that a person may be guilty of an offense but that it is not in the public interest for the person to be punished for his actions.

The defining characteristic of an absolute discharge is the way the discharge goes into effect. This type of discharge provides immediate relief. It is not conditioned on a waiting period or on any conduct proscribed by the court

An absolute discharge means that no further action will be taken against the offender. The offender still has a criminal record, but the court will take no action against them.

Apart from assuming that driving with defective vision is ill advised and dangerous what assumptions am I making.

When I say "defective vision" I mean "unable to meet the test required by the DVLA for drivers". That is a very relaxed criterion, well short of 20/20 - somewhere between 20/30 and 20/40, two or three lines above the 20/20 on the eye chart.

But not sufficiently so as to cause them to collide with her. If other competent drivers could avoid the accident the competence of the driver we are talking about must be questionable.

The eyes have it, claim safety campaigners

Posted 31st Mar 2011 by James Baggott
Filed under: Government/Legal, Safety, UK, Pedestrian safety
The government is being asked to rethink the rules on testing drivers' eyesight in a bid to improve road safety.

Charity Brake wants the number-plate test given to learner drivers to be replaced and regular eye-testing introduced for drivers to keep hold of their licences.
The campaigners say their ideas are supported by 75 per cent of drivers who backed compulsory eyesight testing every five years, in a survey of 1,000 motorists.

Brake says these changes would ensure the UK complied with a European directive that aims to "harmonise standards of driver vision" and improve road safety.
The group swung into action after a Government paper proposed to make the current test even easier, reducing the distance drivers need to be able to read a number plate to 17 metres from 20.5. There are currently no rules for compulsory eye tests after a driver has passed their test.
"As a charity that supports families devastated by road deaths and injuries, we recognise how vital it is to ensure all drivers have good eyesight," said Julie Townsend, campaigns director for Brake.

"Being able to see clearly what's in front and around you is fundamental to safe, responsible driving. So it's baffling that the government proposes making the number-plate test even easier, rather than taking the opportunity to tighten up regulations."
Brake says its campaign is backed by Joy Barnes, from Sheffield, whose niece was killed by a driver with defective eyesight.

Sheffield's Labour MP Meg Munn said: "The death of Fiona was tragic and could have been avoided. It is astonishing that in the 21st century the eyesight test involves reading number plates. It is time that the government understood the devastation caused by road deaths."

However, not everyone agrees action is needed. Claire Armstrong of campaign group Safe Speed said: "We must always base road safety decisions on proper and intelligent science, and sound engineering. This approach is over zealous.
"As people age they attend opticians less. Perhaps assistance with costs is all that is required to retain better vision among drivers, rather than further regulation and penalties."
The Institute of Advanced Motorists said it had been investigating the issue and was "unconvinced" compulsory eye-testing would have a major impact on road safety.

The IAM's Neil Grieg said: "Defective eyesight is only recorded by the police as a contributory factor in 0.4 per cent of fatal crashes and overall in only 0.2 per cent of all injury crashes.
"The cost and time involved in compulsory and more complex eyesight checks would therefore be hard to justify in road safety terms. For the IAM it is more about 'looked but failed to see' as opposed to being unable to see."

Do you think regular eye-tests should be mandatory? Let us know your thoughts by posting your comments below and voting in our poll.

"As people age they attend opticians less. Perhaps assistance with costs is all that is required to retain better vision among drivers, rather than further regulation and penalties."

I think Ernest's reason is actually likely to be the most valid rather than the cost aspect.

It is, however, frightening to think that there are people driving round (on the roads with me) that are functionally blind!

Indeed. To say you drive with defective vision because you cant afford specs is no more justifiable than driving with defective brakes because you can't afford to have the pads replaced.