Police to check driver's eysight

redux

AdrianC wrote: »

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

True, maybe I shouldnt have added that, but my example is mainly to illustrate that prescription prices needn't be as bad as feared.

Maybe they should also check near vision though. Not much point in being perfect at number plates at 20 to 50 yards, but the car's speedometer is blurry.

kmb500

solution is easy, keep your glasses in your car and by the time Mr. Police Officer reaches your window make sure you've put them on

AndyMc.....

kmb500 wrote: »

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?


.

What an idiotic conclusion to come to

You obviously think someone who has trouble with night vision is safe to drive.

AndyMc.....

neilmcl wrote: »

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.

I know someone who left a police station on a Monday lunchtime having been told his licence had been revoked. By Wednesday morning dvla records showed he had a full licence.

AdrianC

kmb500 wrote: »

solution is easy, keep your glasses in your car and by the time Mr. Police Officer reaches your window make sure you've put them on

Or just wear the bloody things...?

facade

redux wrote: »

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

Every single time I've been to Specsavers, I've had to pay £200 ish.


I have a £30 pair from Pakistan via some link on here, that were £14.50 until I got to the checkout , which seem to work ok, but are missing the coatings I take for granted and 1 axis of prism.



As soon as you start to need prism, and want anti-glare, high refractive index, bifocal/varifocal and photochromatic lenses the price skyrockets.

kmb500

AdrianC wrote: »

Or just wear the bloody things...?

no I dont like wearing glasses, am meant to and they do make detailed things (eg text) clearer but they are uncomfortable, look stupid and they hurt my eyes.

facade

kmb500 wrote: »

no I dont like wearing glasses, am meant to and they do make detailed things (eg text) clearer but they are uncomfortable, look stupid and they hurt my eyes.

They shouldn't hurt your eyes, they must be the wrong prescription, should be quite the opposite and allow your eyes to relax more.


As far as comfort goes, it depends on what you mean. I have to have metal frames with adjustable nose pads, rather than the one piece plastic ones that don't fit right, titanium for lightness, along with high refractive index plastic for thin light lenses, anti-glare coatings and photo chromatic for going outside (need fixed tint prescription sun-glasses too for driving in sunshine, as the photo chromatic don't work inside a car) hence always costing around £200. I could get £25 Specsavers ones, but they would be uncomfortable for sure.


Looking stupid is in the eye of the beholder, my latest pair look exactly like the sort people wore in 1957 and are apparently trendy and fashionable....

AdrianC

kmb500 wrote: »

no I dont like wearing glasses, am meant to and they do make detailed things (eg text) clearer but they are uncomfortable, look stupid and they hurt my eyes.

For the love of gawd.

If you insist on prioritising pathetic vanity over the safety of everybody around you, then at least look into contact lenses.


If you won't even do that, then I really hope your local force are one of the ones participating in this.

Joe_Horner

AndyMc..... wrote: »

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.

You know as well as I that the chance of getti g a successful prosecution under S4 is almost zero. The possibility of being able to prove impairment due to alcohol, to the criminal standard, in someone below the limit is almost non-existant. You'd have to (a) prove the impairment, which is objectively difficult in most cases, and (b) prove it had been caused by alcohol at a level which is generally accepted not cause significant impairment (or would be set lower in the first place). While some people are hyper sensitive to alcohol that's a question of their medical history which you'd have no access to without a warrant.

But none of that makes the slightest difference to the fact that Car69 was right and the alternative is still on the books. Which - as you undoubtedly know - was the sole point of my post.

So, no, I won't give you an example of prosecution under S4 just to satisfy your need to make irrelevant, point-scoring, posts thanks