As a driver who wears glasses, I was following the thread about variable focus lenses with interest. Why has it disappeared - or is my eyesight so poor that I can't find it? ; - )
Is the problem the use of tradenames?
|
|
Hidden.
|
|
It has all been 'hidden'. The content did degenerate into stupid levels of verbal abuse and one or two posts were deleted but now the whole thing has gone. Pity, there was some good stuff there among the carp!
|
|
|
I tried them but found I didn't like them. Looking at a distance there was a central circle in focus with the remainder fuzzy. And I had to turn my head a significant amount to see in the side mirrors.
When reading a sheet of A4 the in-focus area was only about half of the width of the page so I had to keep turning my head from side to side. I originally tried them because I thought they would be good for computer work but it was very difficult to get exactly the right amount of tilt of the head up and down to focus at the required distance. I think most people have them out of vanity ~ they associate bi-focal lenses with a sign of old age.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I originally tried them because I thought they would be good for computer work but it was very difficult to get exactly the right amount of tilt of the head up and down to focus at the required distance.
My solution to this was (and is) to have a pair of single focus solely for computer work.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I wear varifocals. Have no problems at all with driving - distance, instruments, mirrors, etc. Some folk might need to adjust to the vari lenses when driving, maybe. And maybe the relative 'strengths' of the near and distance lenses makes a difference.
I would advise 'Try them'.
|
I went from bi-focals to varifocals for a couple of months, and found I was only using two 'sweetspots'. One for distance, the other for close up. my neck got lots of exercise. Using door mirrors was a hazard.
A chat with my optician produced bi-focals with the distance lense extending to the bottom of the frame for about 10mm in from the outside edge (does that make sense?) that completely overcomes the door mirror problem.
I still trip over kerbs!
|
Ive just hidden a few posts here. There is nothing to add to HJs comment above regarding the original thread so please desist from comment and speculation, and keep to topic.
Thanks
smokie, BR Moderator
|
OK, as per my post on the original thread I have been to the opticians today so I asked the question about varifocals and driving, despite quizical probing from me (because HJ's original point made some sense to me), he - the opthalmist - said that it is quite safe to drive in varifocals of the correct prescription, he indicated that it is necessary to be looking through the correct part of the lens though said that would not be a problem if the glasses were correctly fitted, he also inferred that someone who can benefit from varifocals are likely to be safer driving with varifocals that with standard lenses.
No axe to grind for me with this, as I said in the first thread my eys are pretty good, very slightly short sighted so I wear specs for driving to avoid tired eyes.
FWIW I made a rather a Freudian slip while there that tickled the opthalmist, for some unknown reason whilst in conversation I said "Off Licence" rather than "Optician" .......... doh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been wearing them for 4 years with no problems - in fact, I was driving within 30 minutes of putting them on for the first time. I also have a pair of prescription sunglasses with my distance vision prescription. The only real difference is that I can't always read some of the smaller digital displays (e.g. odometer) with the distance prescription.
|
Add my thoughts for what they're worth.
I've done the same as Mike H and had exactly the same result, one of the reasons I had to go to vari-focals when driving was that I couldn't focus quickly enough and clearly on the instuments, in my opinion I was more of a hazard with single vision because my eyes were away from the road for longer than they are now purely to give them time to focus. I have no problems with peripheral vision, at least certainly no more than I did beforehand.
However, there's always a however, I can see HJ's original point about closing speed judgement and motor sport, if I was driving at those sorts of speed that close I might well have problems as demonstrated by my experience playing cricket. When I first moved to vari-focals I tried batting in them, big mistake, I got my son to bowl at me in the nets, he's a big strapping fast bowler. At any speed above about 55mph the ball started to become a blur, at 65+mph it became a red streak, not a comfortable experience on a short pitched delivery I can assure you. Promptly went back to optician and got a pair of single vision distance glasses just for cricket and can now see the ball pretty well at 65+mph, still can't hit it but that's a different issue!! So I can see HJ's point about closing speeds but I hope I'm never in the position on the road where something is closing on me at that speed from 20 yards and is as small as a cricket ball. Strange thing is that varifocals made no difference, to me, at least, when playing badminton.
|
I have to say I've never had any problem with judging speeds, it's all the same to me whether I'm using single vision or varifocals - and that includes some german autobahn driving where speeds are often higher.
I don't play cricket, but I've definitely had problems with badminton, just can't seem to judge the speed of the shuttle which means that I often totally fail to hit the thing!
|
|
|
|
>>Is the problem the use of tradenames?
No, the problem was that "accidentally" one of my notes was changed leaving it to appear that I had written it, but where in fact it had been substantially altered and its content significantly altered.
I complained about this, with some force. Then the thread was hidden - I'm not entirely sure why my note wasn't simply removed with an explanation/confession/apology - I can only think that perhaps there were some idiotic, unfounded, ridiculous opinions voiced in there which became less embarassing whne hidden from public view - but which those would be, and who would feel embarassed about them, I have no idea..
Like buses, there'll no doubt be three or four apologies along for the forgery of a note appearing to be from me in a minute. Inexplicably though, I'm not holding my breath.
|
"It maybe reinstated later if the potential problem goes away."
Would that be you then Mark?
|
>>Would that be you then Mark?
No it would be (name deleted), btu that would take rather too much in the way of self-awareness. If you mean - is he blaming me -, then yes.
|
|
|
|
|
