Police to check driver's eysight

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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.

You'll find the sections generally related to the power of arrest.

But feel free to show us an example of a prosecution under section 4 for driving without a measurement of alcohol.

It's far easier to test at the station and charge accordingly.

Stoke

neilmcl wrote: »

Especially when said "logic" flawed

Did you get your eyes checked yet?

neilmcl

Stoke wrote: »

Did you get your eyes checked yet?

I get my eyes checked every year thanks.

Mrs_Arcanum

I do wonder why some are against this test and the consequential revocation of the driving licence? Surely this is a pretty simple measure to ensure people can see well enough to drive?

If someone fails the test and loses their licence, seems simple enough to get corrective eyewear to get your licence back. If your eyesight is so bad this cannot be fixed, then safer all round to be off the road.

MikeWhite

Norman_Castle wrote: »

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.

I agree. It's the reporting that is wrong. "Police to sight test all motorists that they stop".

neilmcl

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

I do wonder why some are against this test and the consequential revocation of the driving licence? Surely this is a pretty simple measure to ensure people can see well enough to drive?

If someone fails the test and loses their licence, seems simple enough to get corrective eyewear to get your licence back. If your eyesight is so bad this cannot be fixed, then safer all round to be off the road.

Once your licence is revoked I don't think that it's as easy, and more importantly, a quick a process to get the licence back as you'd think. There is nothing wrong with the current minimum eye sight standard for driving, I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. It's the archaic, inaccurate method that's currently used to confirm the standard that's the issue particularly when it can be done using a much more accurate and fair process.

If you're going down the process of revoking someone's licence which can take months to get back and possibly have severe repercussions regarding insurance, not to mention their livelihood then at least do so using a standard, controlled and measured manner that's the same for everyone.

kmb500

AndyMc..... wrote: »

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

What an idiotic thing to say. You're really suggesting that black on yellow lettering looks the same in natural light compared to when shone headlights at?

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.

Yes exactly... failing a rough test like this should trigger a proper eye test.

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

I do wonder why some are against this test and the consequential revocation of the driving licence? Surely this is a pretty simple measure to ensure people can see well enough to drive?

If someone fails the test and loses their licence, seems simple enough to get corrective eyewear to get your licence back. If your eyesight is so bad this cannot be fixed, then safer all round to be off the road.

That's exactly it, it is in your words "simple". There should be nothing "simple" about something like this that gives the police the power to take your licence away.

esuhl

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Do you mean New Zealand or somewhere else?

Nothing on the back of my UK licence and I need and wear glasses.

There's nothing on my licence either. But I don't have a photo card -- just the old style paper licence.

redux

facade wrote: »

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 bought an NHS pair at Specsavers for £27.50, after a free test.

Two years later I did the same again. The new prescription was exactly the same, but 2 days earlier I'd accidentally dropped and stood on the first pair.

A couple of weeks later, using an introductory offer found not far from here, I bought 2 prescription pairs for £14.50.

If anyone thinks it is all too expensive, they can try out non-prescription pairs of reading glasses in certain High St shops and supermarkets for from about £7, or even £1 in pound shops, as I had a couple of times until I found the free test offer and the surprisingly modest price.

So it's wrong to count this as always likely to be £200.

AdrianC

Reading glasses won't make any difference to distance vision.