Police to check driver's eysight

kmb500

facade wrote: »

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....

I went back to specsavers 4 different times for eye test so they could get the right prescription because the glasses hurt my eyes, but after glasses number 4 i just gave up.

NBLondon

other opticians are available... I have all the stuff that facade describes and I accept that I have to pay for it. If you've got a particularly odd prescription - you may well be entitled to get lenses (or contacts) on prescription which brings the price down to paying for the frames.

Joe_Horner

NBLondon wrote: »

other opticians are available... I have all the stuff that facade describes and I accept that I have to pay for it. If you've got a particularly odd prescription - you may well be entitled to get lenses (or contacts) on prescription which brings the price down to paying for the frames.

Even without help prices don't need to go silly. I have a pair for work with my normal reading prescription (about +0.5) in the left lens and +7.5 for close work in the right. The right lens is high RI to avoid the coke bottle effect.

Chose one of their basic frames because they're for a reason rather than fashion and total cost was £85 - including the eye test - from an independent optician.

Like most things, the big chains are often NOT the best value, they're just the best advertised.

neilmcl

AndyMc..... wrote: »

I know someone who left a police station on a Monday lunchtime having been told his licence had been revoked.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.

Clearly hadn't been revoked then or the records hadn't yet been updated.

Rover_Driver

That was one of the problems with the 'old' system. If the police carried out the roadside 20m eysight road test, and the motorist failed it. The police would notify the DVLA in writing, the DVLA would then notify the motorist, also in writing, that their licence was being revoked, which could lead to a delay of several days.
No action could be taken at the time in respect of the motorist continue driving just because they had failed the roadside eyesight test.


The system was revised after a motorist was involved in an accident in 2011, police at the time carried out a roadside eyesight test which the motorist failed. He was told to stop driving but apparently refused, the police submitted a report to the DVLA about the eyesight test failure.
Three days later the motorist was involved in another accident in which a pedestrian was killed.


The 'new' system is that the police can notify the DVLA electronically at the time that the motorist fails the roadside eyesight test, the DVLA can reply electronically, revoking the licence at the time.

Stoke

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.

If you think wearing glasses is uncomfortable, here's a list of other uncomfortable things.... Just for your consideration:
- getting hit by a Vauxhall Astra.
- burying your 16 year old daughter.
- going through the front windscreen of your car.
- spending weeks upon weeks in hospital.
- standing in the dock on a death by dangerous driving charge under cross examination.
- 18 months in jail.
- struggling to find a job after being released.

Best just wear them glasses eh? Save all of the uncomfortable possibilities above. your welcome

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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

Well in answering hjis question you were wrong.

Section 4 gives a power of arrest without a breath test and also a power of entry.

There is no impairment test in the uk from drink drive, you don't need a doctor to spend five years at medical school to say if you think he's impaired take a breath, blood or urine specimen.

When completing an impairment test from drugs, it's for the police to determine the impairment and what drug they believe has been taken. The doctors job is to agree, if he doesn't they'll not impaired.

If someone is arrested for section 4 they are either refused charge, or charged with the following; drunk in charge, refusing to provide a specimen or excess alcohol (section 5 RTA).

So car54 it's outdated and has been for at least 30 years.

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

If you think wearing glasses is uncomfortable, here's a list of other uncomfortable things.... Just for your consideration:
- getting hit by a Vauxhall Astra.
- burying your 16 year old daughter.
- going through the front windscreen of your car.
- spending weeks upon weeks in hospital.
- standing in the dock on a death by dangerous driving charge under cross examination.
- 18 months in jail.
- struggling to find a job after being released.

Best just wear them glasses eh? Save all of the uncomfortable possibilities above. your welcome

Try 14 years for that.

kmb500

Stoke have you lost someone close to you by a blind driver? You seem to take this stuff really personally. My ability to read text at a long distance has nothing to do with not seeing hazards.
besides i've done far worse things than drive dangerously

Joe_Horner

Seems to me that the only real problem with this is the question of revoking rather than suspending the licence.

Akaik there's no current system to place a temporary suspension on a licence for this, which leaves those caught having to go through a full re-application process.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of Parliament to create a suspension system which can be lifted with a simple eye test and, if required from that test, receipt of prescription glasses for "first offenders" with revocation kept for subsequent offences.

That would simplify things enormously for those who genuinely didn't realise or who got caught out by a "bad" roadside test, while still leaving scope to deal with those habitual offenders who place vanity ahead of road safety.