Police to check driver's eysight

Robisere

The 20 metre rule goes way back: when I was working as a workshop foreman and carried out recoveries in the '80's and '90's, I attended RTC's and witnessed officers carrying out this test. One in particular was an older guy, probably around the same age as me now. (73) He could not pass the test and was reported, but the officer asked if he wore spectacles.


"Yes." he replied. "So why are you not wearing them? Where are they?"


Turned out that the specs were clipped to his sun visor.


I have specs and have an eye test every year. Because I have spinal problems, my 'up and down' neck movement is restricted, so I always have large lenses to allow me to see my dashboard clearly. I understand that some elderly people are really not fit to drive, but we are not all so unfit: some of us are still good drivers, with all our marbles still in the bag. I hate it when people criticise sections of the population, whether on age, youth or gender grounds. Everyone is an individual.

Arklight

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45387965


I don't think they should be revoking licences in an uncontrolled, unscientifc test; maybe order an eyesight test at most. For marginal cases, midday light is much better than ambient; as are readily recognisable numbers and letters compared to difficult ones e.g. V111 ABC vs S863 WMN and also how clean the number plate is and how bright the background. They really should not be acting like a kangaroo court in such a subjective area. Be interesting if anyone who has their licence revoked in this manner challenges it.

Seems they have time to harass motorists again but not come round when some yobs are kicking your fence down.

20 metres is not very far. If you can't see well enough to read something as visible as a number plate from that distance, and for some reason are not capable of understanding yourself that you shouldn't be driving, I would be most grateful to Her Majesty's Constabulary for taking you off the road before you kill someone.

Joe_Horner

Deastons wrote: »

Along with many, many thousands of other people. The police do all sorts of things, but when they go public with their decisions, this is the outcome they want - for people to actually become aware and think about their own situation.

Agreed, although I'd already been keeping an eye on mine (see what I did there? :P ) for the past 4 or 5 years, hence having distance glasses for the past couple of years.

As a quick check, the recommended minimum 2 second gap at 22.5mph is 20 metres so, if you're above that speed and can read the number of the car ahead while keeping the recommended gap then you're ok.

That also give an ide of just how bad the prescribed standard is. Not being able to make out a number plate of the car ahead at 20 or so mph really is pretty dire!

I have a habit of gap checking myself (doesn't everyone?) and can still read numbers without glasses at 40 - 45mph and a 3 second gap - so about 50 metres. That puts me comfortably over what's required but I can do even better with glasses and why wouldn't I want to?

EdGasketTheSecond

Arklight wrote: »

20 metres is not very far. If you can't see well enough to read something as visible as a number plate from that distance, and for some reason are not capable of understanding yourself that you shouldn't be driving, I would be most grateful to Her Majesty's Constabulary for taking you off the road before you kill someone.

I'm not saying people should be able to drive if they can't read a number plate at 20m or any other distance as prescribed by law. What I am saying is that the 'test' should not be administered in uncontrolled, variable conditions and by untrained people if the results of that test mean you get your licence revoked. It could be a poor test carried out by untrained police in unfavourable conditions resulting in someone losing their licence and that could mean their livelyhood too.



The actual test needs to be more specific as a good number plate (see example in op) is a lot more readable than a bad one and lighting affects definition greatly.

Norman_Castle

How many people who claim they can read a number plate at 20 meters have actually measured the distance?
It would be really simple to set up voluntary tests outside supermarkets which most people visit. Free number plates from breakers yards fixed to a wall and a white line 20 meters away.
It can be left in place permanently and costs almost nothing.

AndyMc.....

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

I'm not saying people should be able to drive if they can't read a number plate at 20m or any other distance as prescribed by law. What I am saying is that the 'test' should not be administered in uncontrolled, variable conditions and by untrained people if the results of that test mean you get your licence revoked. It could be a poor test carried out by untrained police in unfavourable conditions resulting in someone losing their licence and that could mean their livelyhood too.



The actual test needs to be more specific as a good number plate (see example in op) is a lot more readable than a bad one and lighting affects definition greatly.

Do you actually know the process that leads to your licence being revoked if you fail the roadside test?

Norman_Castle

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Seems they have time to harass motorists again

Its hardly harassment. The only eyesight tests I've needed to pass to drive were over three decades ago. I suspect most motorists are the same.

Its also very quick and simple and only being done when stopped for another reason.

Stoke

Regardless of the variances in administration of the test, I think this is brilliant. I've spoken before of the accident I was involved in that was very much to blame on an elderly driver who 'thought' she saw something.

Just been reading about a 28 year old killed in an accident with an elderly driver who was driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway just 24 hours after being told to stop driving. With respect, I'd like to be able to drive down a dual carriageway without crashing head first into some geriatrics Volvo.

Great idea. Makes you wonder how many people over the age of 70 would fail if they had to take mandatory eye tests. It's not age discrimination, these are killing machines and it's normally some teenager who gets killed.

hollie.weimeraner

Stoke wrote: »

Great idea. Makes you wonder how many people over the age of 70 would fail if they had to take mandatory eye tests. It's not age discrimination, these are killing machines and it's normally some teenager who gets killed.

It's not just the elderly (but generally they are more likely to be in this group). Eyesight generally starts deteriorating from about age 40 onwards.

There should be mandatory eyesight tests every time you are required to renew your licence ie every 10 years when you update your photograph or for anyone over 70 it's every 3 years.

neilmcl

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Do you actually know the process that leads to your licence being revoked if you fail the roadside test?

Do you, and if so will you share please?