Police to check driver's eysight

facade

Car_54 wrote: »

Call me niaive, but I imagine a traffic police officer will have been trained and will have to follow a procedure covering choice of numberplate, light conditions etc.

There is nothing new about this test, it has been in use for the best part of a century.

Why will they have to follow a reasonable procedure? there is nothing about test conditions in the requirements.
If they want to test you in fog, in the dark you'd better have been eating your carrots, because they can, and you have to read that plate. Doesn't even say it has to be clean, but having a very dirty unreadable 'plate is an offence, so you would think they couldn't get away with that on a road.

AndyMc..... wrote: »

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

Which is why, in the 21st century, we really need to get away from that archaic definition, and move to a scientifically valid test in controlled conditions. Keep the 20m test as an indicator if you must, but if you just fail it, it should trigger accurate testing, not an immediate revocation.



That back number plate I read at 25m at 7AM, I managed 35m at lunchtime. Walking around, the distance at which I can read numberplates varies considerably with the plate. Some appear much higher contrast and clearer letters than others, but they all passed MOT (I assume ) and so were manufactured to BS AU 145D.


btw I mean "read" in the sense of be able to clearly discern the character, not match enough of the outline to guess it based on the font, I can do that some way further back.




I measured the distance counting the kerbstones from when I could definitely read the plate till I reached the back of the car. Round here they are 3 feet (0.91m) and were all laid at the same time.

AndyMc.....

facade wrote: »

Why will they have to follow a reasonable procedure? there is nothing about test conditions in the requirements.
If they want to test you in fog, in the dark you'd better have been eating your carrots, because they can, and you have to read that plate. Doesn't even say it has to be clean, but having a very dirty unreadable 'plate is an offence, so you would think they couldn't get away with that on a road.






Which is why, in the 21st century, we really need to get away from that archaic definition, and move to a scientifically valid test in controlled conditions. Keep the 20m test as an indicator if you must, but if you just fail it, it should trigger accurate testing, not an immediate revocation.



That back number plate I read at 25m at 7AM, I managed 35m at lunchtime. Walking around, the distance at which I can read numberplates varies considerably with the plate. Some appear much higher contrast and clearer letters than others, but they all passed MOT (I assume ) and so were manufactured to BS AU 145D.


btw I mean "read" in the sense of be able to clearly discern the character, not match enough of the outline to guess it based on the font, I can do that some way further back.




I measured the distance counting the kerbstones from when I could definitely read the plate till I reached the back of the car. Round here they are 3 feet (0.91m) and were all laid at the same time.

We have.

You must also meet the minimum eyesight standard for driving by having a visual acuity of at least decimal 0.5 (6/12) measured on the Snellen scale (with glasses or contact lenses, if necessary) using both eyes together or, if you have sight in one eye only, in that eye.

You must also have an adequate field of vision - your optician can tell you about this and do a test.

facade

AndyMc..... wrote: »

We have.

You must also meet the minimum eyesight standard for driving by having a visual acuity of at least decimal 0.5 (6/12) measured on the Snellen scale (with glasses or contact lenses, if necessary) using both eyes together or, if you have sight in one eye only, in that eye.

You must also have an adequate field of vision - your optician can tell you about this and do a test.

They are must also, in addition to the number one requirement that you must be able to read that plate, it ought to be the other way round, those 2 become musts, with no also, and the 20m test become "also should" and I, and likely kmb500, will be happy.


Then if you fail an arbitary 20m test because the conditions are poor, it could trigger the repeatable tests, and we can continue to assume (wrongly with visual field) that if you pass the 20m test, you would meet the other two.





I fear the headline "Police checks take 20,000 blind motorists off the road and save a million lives!" and on the last day a protesting/savvy victim has a 20m tape with them and finds out that the distance was actually 25m, and it was virtually dark when they failed.

AndyMc.....

facade wrote: »

They are must also, in addition to the number one requirement that you must be able to read that plate, it ought to be the other way round, those 2 become musts, with no also, and the 20m test become "also should" and I, and likely kmb500, will be happy.


Then if you fail an arbitary 20m test because the conditions are poor, it could trigger the repeatable tests, and we can continue to assume (wrongly with visual field) that if you pass the 20m test, you would meet the other two.





I fear the headline "Police checks take 20,000 blind motorists off the road and save a million lives!" and on the last day a protesting/savvy victim has a 20m tape with them and finds out that the distance was actually 25m, and it was virtually dark when they failed.

I don't think they're in any set order, you must be able to do all three.

And as I said, if you can't see in the dark.

neilmcl

Stoke wrote: »

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

Especially when said "logic" is flawed

facade

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or not. We can't see in the dark without mechanical enhancements, it just isn't possible due to the design of our eyes.


Dogs & cats have a reflective layer behind the retina that acts as an image intensifier, at the expense of less definition, which is why their eyes glow when a light shines on them, and even they can't see in the dark.

facade

I guess by now most of us have read



https://www.gov.uk/driving-eyesight-rules


Although, be careful, in their attempts to simplify things for us peasants, they usually completely misstate the Law.


You have to pass that uncontrolled 20m test. Even if you pass the controlled environment properly defined tests 5 minutes earlier at the Driving test centre, you still have to go outside and read that numberplate.


The uncontrolled nature of the 20m test is my problem, not the standardised requirements for vision, which I'm sure I meet- I had a visual field test and full eyetest in May.

Norman_Castle

facade wrote: »

Why will they have to follow a reasonable procedure? there is nothing about test conditions in the requirements.
If they want to test you in fog, in the dark you'd better have been eating your carrots, because they can, and you have to read that plate. Doesn't even say it has to be clean, but having a very dirty unreadable 'plate is an offence, so you would think they couldn't get away with that on a road.






Which is why, in the 21st century, we really need to get away from that archaic definition, and move to a scientifically valid test in controlled conditions. Keep the 20m test as an indicator if you must, but if you just fail it, it should trigger accurate testing, not an immediate revocation.

Highly unlikely the police will be testing in thick fog or fail to accept a dirty plate is unreadable because of dirt rather than poor eyesight. If a complaint is reasonable I'm sure they'll find another plate to read.


The problem with not taking action immediately is allowing someone with below standard eyesight to continue driving. License suspension until the eyesight can be proved acceptable is the only safe option.

Car_54

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.

I may well be wrong, but I seem to remember that the introduction of the breathalyser did not supersede the previous legislation, i.e. a person can still be convicted if an officer can persuade the court that he was drunk.

Perhaps Andy can confirm, or otherwise.

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

I may well be wrong, but I seem to remember that the introduction of the breathalyser did not supersede the previous legislation, i.e. a person can still be convicted if an officer can persuade the court that he was drunk.

Perhaps Andy can confirm, or otherwise.

You're right there are two separate offences:

Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit under Road Tradffic Act 1988 [RTA] section 5

and

Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs under RTA section 4

Both carry the same penalties.
The S4 offence doesn't require any measurement of alcohol levels but does require evidence of impairment.
The S5 offence doesn't require evidence of impairment but does require measured blood or breath levels.