Specsavers Opticians, one of the biggest optical retailers in the UK, conducted 3,000 eye tests at the International Motor Show at the NEC in Birmingham. A staggering 700 of the drivers [23%] failed a basic vision test which was offered free of charge as part of the opticians campaign to educate motorists regarding the dangers of driving with poor eyesight.
Full article: www.racfoundation.org/releases/191102rac.htm
Just how frightening is this - I think it explains a great deal of the driving I see around the country. Surely this is an area where we can all agree that new legislation would make sense.
V
|
I'm told this is how drink driving came about.
The police wanted to crack down on bad eyesight which is a killer. There were told it would be politically unnaceptable to upset people with bad eyesight so drink driving was chosen instead.
They therefore turned a blind eye to eyesight.
As a side issue I beleive 20 odd out of 700 drivers in my area were found to be over the limit when tested.
According to my maths this left 680 who were driving so badly as to be considered drunk who were not prosecuted for dangerous driving!
I've long thought we only need one motoring offence in UK law. If it's not dangerous it's safe. If it's safe what's the problem?
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Toad
or 680 had their time wasted uneccessarily just so that Plod could use their breathalyser equipment as part of the annual police terror.
as ever
Mark
|
|
"annual police terror" - I hope this was ironic, if not I suggest you check on the statistics for the nunber of people killed, maimed, bereaved every day - not just year - through drunk drivers. The sooner we have random breath tests the better.
|
|
|
|
"A staggering 700 of the drivers [23%] failed a basic vision test"
Not staggering at all.
I have repeatedly put forward on this forum my view that reading a numberplate at the time of your test being the only check on vision in a lifetime of driving is totally inadequate.
The only reasonable conclusion to come to is that at least 23% of drivers should not be on the road for medical reasons.
God knows what the percentage would be if other physical and mental impairments were counted in.
|
"..if other physical and mental impairments were counted in.."
How about eyesight x hearing (1=perfect) x IQ must be greater than the national speed limit? Not that I want a police state or anything.
(Yes, I know it would be unfair to Max Power readers...)
|
|
I am short sighted (cant see things from a distance for those who dont know what it is) and I have a Motorbike and I actually find it more disorientating driving with specs on than without. I find that it can make you feel very dizzy at speed and also they mist up in cold weather making it impossible to see anyway, some what defeating the object.....
|
I am short sighted (cant see things from a distance for those who dont know what it is) and I have a Motorbike and I actually find it more disorientating driving with specs on than without. I find that it can make you feel very dizzy at speed and also they mist up in cold weather making it impossible to see anyway, some what defeating the object.....
Not being silly but are you sure your glasses are properly fitted. I had some for short sightedness made up by a high street chain (who used a butch yank with a tash in their adverts!!) but found the same problem as you. Fortunately someone gave me the details of another optician (who supposedly does Coulthards eyes). He said that my lenses were just OK but that the "nose pads" were too big and that my eyes were not looking through the correct part of the lense. Changed the nose pads to smaller ones and all is tickety-boo.
He did me well and charged the £30 odd for a full on test, (photographing veins in my eye balls etc). Based in west London so can supply details if needed.
|
|
|
I am short sighted (cant see things from a distance for those who dont know what it is) and I have a Motorbike and I actually find it more disorientating driving with specs on than without. I find that it can make you feel very dizzy at speed and also they mist up in cold weather making it impossible to see anyway, some what defeating the object.....
>>
There really must be something wrong with your prescription or fitting (or you are only wearing them while on the bike and not the rest of the time, which causes problems with adjustment to wearing them). I was a four-eyed bike courier for two years without any problems at all.
Also, while I sympathise (as a fellow Colonel Blink) if I could not see clearly, I wouldn't be riding a bike. It could be me who gets killed. Or worse, someone else.
V
|
|
|
I don't know why your specs should make you dizzy at speed, but for the misting I use a demister both on the inside of the vizor and the inside of the spectacles (outside of specs as well sometimes) and find this solves the problem.
If you require specs for driving and don't actually have them on I believe that it will invalidate your insurance.
Some countries (Australia for example) endorse driving licences to indicate that specs are required; no specs = invalid licence.
|
|
|
Have you considered getting contact lenses?
I made the change several years ago and have never looked back. (No pun intended). No more misted up glasses, no more silly baseball caps in the rain to keep them dry, no more light diffusing through the edges and making it hard to see, able to work on the car etc without worring about them falling off.
|
|
|
|
JBJ - hehehehe I'm with you on this one.... can we devise a similar equation to decide who gets a vote. And a sun reader (sorry if I'm offending anyone out there) gets their result (if over zero) multiplied by minus one!!
BTW - actually I'm not that sorry at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to eyesight ...
I need specs to correct shortsightedness but when wearing them for driving I can't focus properly on the speedometer. Are bifocals or varifocals the only answer to this?
|
Back to eyesight ... I need specs to correct shortsightedness but when wearing them for driving I can't focus properly on the speedometer. Are bifocals or varifocals the only answer to this?
Possibly, particualrly if you're getting to the age where that sort of thing might be expected. An optician would be able to tell you better than I can, though.
V
|
|
|
"..when wearing them for driving I can't focus properly on the speedometer"
Sounds like a watertight defence to me! :-)
|
www.liquidgeneration.com/sabotage/vision_sabotage....p
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
I wore varifocals for driving for about a year. During that time I was forever correcting the steering, particulary on fast motorway type bends. I also found I was much slower on rural twisty roads. It never occurred to me at the time that my glasses were giving me a distorted view of the road, and I actually thought something was wrong with the steering or suspension. I had the car checked out and even fitted 4 new tyres.
Then, about a month ago I wore my regular (to correct short sight) glasses. Since then, no more over/under steering feel to the car.
No-one warned me not to wear varifocals for driving, but I would not recommend them.
|
|
|
|
What are all these empty messages?
HF
|
What are all these empty messages?
HF, Mark (or a deputy moderator) snipped the content as he/they obviously deemed it inappropriate. If you remember, a question was asked to as whether or not a certain over 18's magazine was still in production.
It also looks like Toads censorship thread on the subject of these missing messages has got pulled as well.
Mark may be in Chile, but his scissors are still razor sharp by the looks of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My 'problem' with this is that is seems another case of authority setting a limit because they can test it, rather than it having any relevance at all.
What has being able to read a number plate at a certain distance, or even being able to focus on the speedo have to do with safe driving?
You can tell what speed you're doing whithout actually focusing because you can see the angle of the needle, and know where the numbers are.
When driving, as long as you can understand the road signs (many of which are pictures anyway), and can see objects of 'baby' size and larger, what is the real threat to road safety. After all it's the vehicle you have to miss, not its registration plate.
If you are actually reading number plates while driving, then you're not concetrating properly on your driving anyway.
It maybe the start of another goevernment scheme to further regulate and restrict us all: - Compulsory annual eye tests. Anyone not carrying a valid eyesight certificate, together with their paper driving licence and identity card (sorry, driving licence photocard) to be immediately imprisoned with the olympic target shooters, all of whom have been found carrying guns.
And to aid enforcement, a £500 reward for anyone who informs on one of these people.
|
When driving, as long as you can understand the road signs (many of which are pictures anyway), and can see objects of 'baby' size and larger, what is the real threat to road safety. After all it's the vehicle you have to miss, not its registration plate.
In the absence of a smiley, I assume you are actually serious.
In which case, please inform us of when and where you normally drive, so I can endevour to avoid being on these roads at the same time as you.
|
|
|
Caspian, if you're serious (and I can't for a moment believe you are), ponder this.
When I passed my test I could probably have passed the number plate test without glasses. Nowadays I cannot read the top letter on an eyesight chart. I would probably have to get to within a yard or so of a number plate to see it.
Since I took my test, no check has been made on my eyesight, so when you're on the same road as me, you're relying on my good sense to have had my eyesight checked and corrected. When your children step out in front of my car, their lives rest at least partly on the fact that I've had my eyesight checked and corrected.
Also, as for being "part of a government scheme", perhaps this is one that makes sense.
V
|
Some years ago I encountered a driver who gave the reason for not stopping for the marked police patrol using blue lights and stop sign was because of the 'mist'. As it was a bright summers day he was given a road side eyesight test and it was found he could not read the standard number plate even while standing next to it. He then put on his glasses (which he had not been wearing to drive) and he could read the plate at about 3 feet. This gentleman had been driving like this for several years.
|
|
Two OAPs who are friends of my wife share the driving, one has cataracts and a driving licence the other has good eyesight but no driving licence. So when they go shopping, the former drives and the latter tells her where to point the car. Seems to work and she has full no claims.
|
|
|
|
"..perhaps this is one that makes sense"
Possibly even more so than alcohol level, which is at least only temporary. As Winston Churchill said to a dining companion who accused him of being drunk: "Madam, you're ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober!"
After all, pilots have to have their eyesight checked - why not drivers?
|
"..perhaps this is one that makes sense" Possibly even more so than alcohol level
Certianly more so than alcohol. Alcohol causes few crashes. Eyesight causes 1 in 7.
Something else that should be regularly tested is ability to drive.
Why the focus is on speeding and beer is beyond me.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Trouble is Toad when you are miffed you see three roads.
Good eyesight ensures you see the correct one....
DVD
|
Trouble is Toad when you are miffed you see three roads.
Voice of experience? ;-)
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
After all, pilots have to have their eyesight checked - why not drivers?
Interestingly, I read once that when joining the RAF, a potential pilots eyesight has to be 20/02 or better without spectacles or contact lenses.
But if it degrades to the point where they are required after a few years, thats okay as 'experience compensates'. Alledgedly.
|
|
|
|
Please don't take my view to extremes.
My point was that the ability to read a number plate at a specified distance has nothing to do with your ability to drive safely. Reading anything is a measure of visual acuity, and can be done by someone with tunnel vision. (who would be extremely dangerous behind a wheel in my opinion).
For most of the time you're driving you need good awareness, peripheral vision, and the ability to judge the relative movements and speeds of object significantly larger than an indivdual number plate letter. Certainly most children are significantly larger than this, and I 'could' argue that the ability to read 'FCUK' on a tee shirt was a disadvantage under some circumsrances.
I'm merely pointing out that the test you're all so excited about isn't even close to an appropriate measure of the kind of eyesight you need to drive safely. (Which you sort of agree with) Therefore, just because you can't read a number plate at whatever distance doesn't mean you're incapable of safe driving.
And if you can't see this, then your all shortsided. So there!!
If you want some really contraversial views from me, ask about speed limits.
|
You have a point, albeit not a particularly accurate one.
Being shortsighted does not negate your ability to judge speed and distance to things you can acutally make out, but there are many situations where being able to see not just where something is but what it is, is very important.
Like the manic motorcyclists who will quite cheerfully ride at 90mph inbetween two lines of heavy traffic doing 70 at night, their headlamps dazzling anyone who looks in their mirrors. (You get them by the dozen on the A127)
These are hard enough to spot even with good vision.
|
RichT and Vin: We might be close to an agreement.
1) The motorcyclist hurtling down between two lanes is substantially larger than a number plate letter and is moving.
2) The original entry in the thread concerned specsavers making an issue out of people not being able to read number plates (or something similar)
3)You can have all sorts of vision 'defects' that prevent you form reading a number plate (even overly long sight!) which don't effect your safe driving.
4) If we are going to have 'proper' eyetest (or rather visual perception tests) can we please make them fit for purpose, rather than easy to quantify.
I still maintain that reading ability (ie static acuity) and the visual perception needed for safe driving are completely different facets of the visual system. Both the current test, and the spacsavers sensationalism that triggered the thread, are aimed ONLY at one specific aspect of sight (acuity). It is the one easiest measured and least relevant to the ability to drive safely.
Which is what I said in the first place, and I'm still serious.
Love and kisses to all.
|
|
|
|
Caspian,
There's clearly been a misunderstanding - I wasn't suggesting just repeating the number plate test after a few years. No, I'm advocating a proper eyesight test both for getting a provisional licence and, say, at five year intervals. I should have stressed that I think the number plate test is a bad joke.
Might well pay off long term if you take into account that putting people through a full eye test (1/4 cost of a tank of fuel) allows earlier recognition of many illnesses, both eyesight related and things like diabetes.
V
|
"..putting people through a full eye test (1/4 cost of a tank of fuel)"
These were free before Mrs T. decided that everyone should pay their own way (having married a millionaire herself), thus inadvertently exposing the NHS to much greater costs from undiagnosed glaucoma and, it would appear, more A&E work as a result of road accidents.
I'm not in generally in favour of bureaucracy, but new cars have to be MOT'd after three years, so why not their owners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
