Police to check driver's eysight

Mrs_Arcanum

facade wrote: »

I get what you mean, but this can't actually be a correct comparison can it? Having the acuity to read the text and accurately distinguish its shape is harder than just being able to see something. A blurry car at 1/4 mile is still a car you've seen, and can react to, a blurry letter 75mm high at 20m is still a 75mm tall object that you can see at 20m, the sensational stories quoted were people who probably couldn't have seen the car that the number plate was on at 20m.


I'm in the "We need proper testing" camp, it isn't right that if you can't make out a dirty numberplate at 20 plus metres with a low sun behind the car reflecting off a wet road surface that you lose your licence, when there is a scientifically measurable standard of acuity that isn't that hard to perform.


Archaic that even if you pass the acuity test, if you can't read that dirty plate in low sun you still don't meet the standards. (And your acuity has to be a lot worse to qualify as partially sighted too)

A blurry car that you may have no idea of whether it is braking or accelerating. That is where the danger lies on motorways.

Mrs_Arcanum

Stoke wrote: »

It's worth noting that one of the articles I linked to, the man had already been prescribed glasses by an optician, but decided it wasn't necessary for him to wear them because he was like a wise old guru???? Err, anyway, yeah that was right before he killed someone.

It's really !!!!ing simple and I don't get why people are struggling. If you can hardly see past your nose, then you shouldn't be driving. If you are aware that you have !!!! eye sight go and sort a set of glasses. They're not even expensive these days. With a prescription you get two decent pairs for about 40 quid online.

#TeenLivesMatter

A soon to be 80 year old friend has finally got into the habit of wearing his glasses for driving. It took a while and if he were always on his own, I suspect he still wouldn't have bothered.

Had the pancreatic cancer not killed him first, the glaucoma my father suffered with would have necessitated him having his licence taken away.

facade

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

A blurry car that you may have no idea of whether it is braking or accelerating. That is where the danger lies on motorways.

??????
Does it say "accelerating" on the back in 75mm high letters? I think there are some visual clues other than that



Look, I can pass that eyetest, I've just checked outside. I could read a rear numberplate at 25m, and a front one at 32m at 7am this morning, likely that improves as the light picks up.


However, I could tell you the colour and whether it was a Ka size, Fiesta size, small van, big van moving towards/away, stationary, tennis ball rolling underneath, occupied etc. at vastly more than that.

Why do I need to accurately read it's numberplate to not run into it or the Nun carrying the basket of kittens getting out hand in hand with CHILDREN? (Do I get a prize for mentioning them first)





I'm all for taking virtually blind drivers off the road, but to say



can read 75mm text @ 20m = safe
can't read it = dangerous,



when the act of driving doesn't involve reading 75mm text at 20m in the first place is just crazy. You could have extreme tunnel vision and pass, but IMHO be far more dangerous behind the wheel than someone who can't quite make out a few random letters.



I realise we are wasting our time, as the standard is that you have to read that plate, full stop. The acuity is in addition to reading the plate, but they are supposed to match.




I think the real reason behind the campaign is to generate fear, and get a load more people through Specsavers for long overdue eyetests and £200 glasses (They are always £200, no matter what the offer )


I wonder if the NHS can cope with all the referrals from specsavers, as a lot more eye conditions will be early diagnosed now?- another good thing.

Andy_L

MikeWhite wrote: »

This is the bit I have trouble with. The linked article says they will "test eyesight of all drivers stopped"
What happens at night, in fog etc?

Maybe it'll be like a producer and youll have to turn up at the station to do it. Or perhaps its just shoddy reporting?

Mercdriver

kmb500 wrote: »

I don't know what the standard should be and I don't know how to check it roadside. I am not a scientist.
Why would it need to be checked roadside anyway? You compared it to a police officer asking a drunk driver to move their hand to their nose or something. That might indicate that they're drunk, but that's not evidence enough to remove their licence. It indicates they're drunk, and then the police use a breathalyser to give them a stronger indication - and even a breathalyser is not enough to ban someone from the road, they then have to take them in to do a more thorough medically approved test - taking blood samples.

This is much more thorough than the number plate check. Number plate reading would be fine as an indication but then they should take the person to a police station and do a throuoguh, medically sound eye exam to see whether they're able to drive.

For a drink driving conviction, a blood test is not necessary. An in station evidential breath test is sufficient. In fact a blood test is usually only used where breath test is marginal.

kmb500

Mercdriver wrote: »

For a drink driving conviction, a blood test is not necessary. An in station evidential breath test is sufficient. In fact a blood test is usually only used where breath test is marginal.

OK but you are taken to the station and tested properly having been given time for your breath to normalise, it's done properly. It's not just "Oh I think this bloke is a bit !!!!ed because he can't walk in a straight line"

AndyMc.....

Mercdriver wrote: »

For a drink driving conviction, a blood test is not necessary. An in station evidential breath test is sufficient. In fact a blood test is usually only used where breath test is marginal.

That's not the case anymore.

It used to be 36-39 you were over but not charged.
40-50 you had the option of blood refuse the blood test and you were charged.

No it's straight charge at 40.

AndyMc.....

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't think a police officer performing a random stop, or otherwise, can control the conditions required for an accurate and fair test.

20 metres is 20 metres whatever the weather. If you can't see at night are you fit to drive?

Stoke

AndyMc..... wrote: »

That's not the case anymore.

It used to be 36-39 you were over but not charged.
40-50 you had the option of blood refuse the blood test and you were charged.

No it's straight charge at 40.

Which is absolutely how it should be....

Well, a zero limit would be better.

Stoke

AndyMc..... wrote: »

20 metres is 20 metres whatever the weather. If you can't see at night are you fit to drive?

Don't use logic Andy..... It's a waste of time.