Police to check driver's eysight

Stoke

kmb500 wrote: »

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

I have not lost anyone close due to a driver with bad eyesight.... I have, however, lost friends due to drunk drivers and drivers under the influence of drugs. The fact is, when you get into your car, you are operating a dangerous piece of equipment. I think society has gone too far in the "driving is a privilege" direction. Driving is all just a bit of fun and car manufacturers are just as much to blame for this line of thinking.... Cars are fundamentally tools, and if you have happen to have fun while driving, it should NOT be at the expense of other peoples safety. If you are told you have bad eyesight, but happen to enjoy driving, you should aim to rectify your eyesight before enjoying your hobby again.

You wouldn't operate a sheet metal cutter after 6 pints of Stella or with crappy eyesight. Why on earth you would be happy to drive a car when you can barely see the road ahead of you is simply beyond me.

As for doing things worse than driving dangerously..... I suspect we've all been guilty of making a mistake while driving that was potentially dangerous. Are you suggesting you actively go out to drive dangerously? If so, the sooner your license is revoked the better, I'm afraid.

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Do you ever place the bits you choose to snipe at in context? Or do you see a sentence you disagree with and jump immediately to "post reply" without ever reading the rest?


Look, to make it easy for you I've placed the context bit in red bold underlined in the quote above.

Clearly, I'm NOT talking about under the current system if I suggest that parliament could create an appropriate system.

Why, when revocation is a suspension?

sevenhills

jack_pott wrote: »

It surprises me that people are allowed to drive with one eye, I wouldn't be happy losing that much field of vision.

I have a lazy eye, which means my brain only processes the vision from the good eye, very similar to having one eye, I believe.
I manage perfectly well, better than some.

Joe_Horner

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Why, when revocation is a suspension?

No, it's not.

To revoke something is to cancel or invalidate it. If a licence is revoked then a new application has to be made in future for a new licence. If MSE revoke your account then AndyMc... ceases to exist and, if you want to continue posting, you have to become a new user.

To suspend something is to stop it operating for now, but it can be reactivated in future. That lifting of a suspension may be automatic, or may require certain conditions to be met. But it doesn't require a new "something" to be awarded in future. If MSE suspend your account then you can come back later, still as Andy Mc....

Big difference.

The fact that our current system doesn't allow for that distinction, and people carelessly use the terms interchangeably, doesn't negate the fact that the two words have very clearly different meanings.

Hence my comment about obviously "not talking about the current system", where revocation (requiring an application for a NEW licence) is what actually happens regardless of the name used.

AndyMc.....

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, it's not.

To revoke something is to cancel or invalidate it. If a licence is revoked then a new application has to be made in future for a new licence. If MSE revoke your account then AndyMc... ceases to exist and, if you want to continue posting, you have to become a new user.

To suspend something is to stop it operating for now, but it can be reactivated in future. That lifting of a suspension may be automatic, or may require certain conditions to be met. But it doesn't require a new "something" to be awarded in future. If MSE suspend your account then you can come back later, still as Andy Mc....

Big difference.

The fact that our current system doesn't allow for that distinction, and people carelessly use the terms interchangeably, doesn't negate the fact that the two words have very clearly different meanings.

Hence my comment about obviously "not talking about the current system", where revocation (requiring an application for a NEW licence) is what actually happens regardless of the name used.

It is because following revocation you revert back to the same status you were, no retest, same categories, same licence.

brianposter

Surely if licences were revoked for everybody who can read a number plate at 20 yards, that would save far more lives.

kmb500

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Frames come in different sizes. The wrong size will be uncomfortable.

Glasses don't make you look stupid, they allow you to see how stupid you look

Not the frames, the glass itself makes my eyes ache.

Mercdriver

kmb500 wrote: »

Not the frames, the glass itself makes my eyes ache.

Then catch the bus instead of putting other's lives at risk. You will just get delayed if you get on the wrong one because you can't see the numbers properly without your glasses.

Seriously, stop being so ignorant and selfish.

Bigphil1474

If you're stopped by the police and they think you are drunk, they can do a roadside test, and then an evidential test at the station. Same for drug driving. They can do an objective check on whether you have insurance, MOT, tax etc. as well. Why should eyesight test be some vagueness depending on the particular officer that stops you, and the conditions at the time. They could use the 20m roadside test as an indicator, then if there is a problem, take you back to the station for an evidential test which should be more scientific. They could also suspend your license until you have proved you are able to drive either by wearing glasses or not, no need to revoke (which requires a re-application).
The problem with this initiative has nothing to do with the blindingly obvious (pun intended), it is the marginal drivers who might struggle a little to pass the 20m test but still have sufficient eye sight to drive safely. If you can't see past the end of the bonnet of your own car, then you are going to fail any test, but if you could, for example, make out half of the letters on a test plate, is that a pass or a fail. If the police have a defined standard for a test done under defined conditions, then there shouldn't be a problem, but can't see that always being the case. I don't have any eye sight issues (except reading glasses), so it doesn't affect me either way.

NBLondon

the glass itself makes my eyes ache.

Then either a) you have the wrong prescription or possibly b) you have been getting by with uncorrected vision for so long that your eyes are taking a longer time to adjust. If it's a) - try a different optician than Specsavers - Boots also do free eye test offers from time to time. if it's b) - the problem will only get worse... It could also be both.