Police to check driver's eysight

Arklight

At 48 kph (30 mph) you will travel 20 metres in 1.5 seconds. If you can't see clearly that far you are as big a menace as a drunk driver.

How people are claiming being asked to read something as large and designed-to-be-visible as a number plate at that range is unfair, is beyond me.

Reading a number plate at 20 metres is to eye-tests what putting your finger on your nose is to sobriety tests.

I live in an area which has a lot of elderly people and I have lost count of the number of cars that have been damaged (including my own) and accidents that have been caused by drivers who simply cannot see.

The most recent one was at the community centre where the staff saw an old lady in the car park hit two cars trying to park. She then gave up on getting into that space and drove up to another one. She was about to hit the car next to it as well when the staff ran out and stopped her. Not only did she not know she had hit the other cars, she couldn't even see them when people pointed to them.

After it was sorted out, she drove home. Now at least the police might be able to do something.

Mrs_Arcanum

kmb500 wrote: »

Also should revoke licences of people who can't detect sarcasm.

So I assume you have ornamental indicators, as I saw no flashing lights.

Mrs_Arcanum

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So what I said was correct.

Did you miss the bit that don't need to tell them anything?

Jackmydad

kmb500 wrote: »

I hope they also crack down and revoke the licences of all drivers found to not check all three mirrors before, during and after every manouevre they make.

Yes, but you're moving into different territory there, from not being capable of seeing what's there if you look in the mirrors, to can't be bothered to look in the mirrors.

Again I've said before, that I'd like a system where you'd have to sit a driving assessment every ten years to retain your licence. Over 70s would have to do that more often.
It'd sharpen everybody's driving up, get rid of the idea that it's a "right" and hopefully get the worst drivers of all ages off the road.

I think the standard of some drivers in this country is pretty appalling. It seems to get worse and worse too, and I'm reasonably sure that's not just me getting less tolerant.
By the way, I don't think I'm a faultless driver, but I try to be as good as I can, and at least concentrate on the job in hand.

Checking people's eyesight is perhaps at least a start in the right direction.

Jackmydad

kmb500 wrote: »

Also should revoke licences of people who can't detect sarcasm.

. . .And the ones who try to use it on forums!
(Says he who is guilty as charged! )

kmb500

Jackmydad wrote: »

Yes, but you're moving into different territory there, from not being capable of seeing what's there if you look in the mirrors, to can't be bothered to look in the mirrors.

Again I've said before, that I'd like a system where you'd have to sit a driving assessment every ten years to retain your licence. Over 70s would have to do that more often.
It'd sharpen everybody's driving up, get rid of the idea that it's a "right" and hopefully get the worst drivers of all ages off the road.

I think the standard of some drivers in this country is pretty appalling. It seems to get worse and worse too, and I'm reasonably sure that's not just me getting less tolerant.
By the way, I don't think I'm a faultless driver, but I try to be as good as I can, and at least concentrate on the job in hand.

Checking people's eyesight is perhaps at least a start in the right direction.

How is not being able to read exactly what letter a number plate is, how is that the same as "not seeing what's there"? If you can see the number plate why does it matter whether you can actually read it? Its like saying well if you can see a car in front of you but can't tell what make of car it is, you shouldn't be driving!

Reading a number plate is such a stupid and irrelevant test. It is not an "eye test" by any definition. It is a "Can you read a number plate at 20 metres" test and it stands for NOTHING else.

When has your ability to read a car's number plate ever put you or others at risk? Serious question to anyone who can provide any example.

AdrianC

kmb500 wrote: »

If you can see the number plate why does it matter whether you can actually read it? Its like saying well if you can see a car in front of you but can't tell what make of car it is, you shouldn't be driving!

Umm, no. Not unless you're arguing that the eyesight test is unfair on those without basic literacy skills.


Identifying a make of car is more akin to knowing the alphabet than meeting a basic eyesight standard. And reading a plate at 20m is a VERY basic eyesight test. The test is whether somebody has the visual acuity to distinguish the characters, not of their reading ability.


Can you answer this, please, with a clear and straightforward, unambiguous answer - are you suggesting that the number plate test is unreasonably stringent, and that people who do not have the visual acuity to meet it may still have perfectly adequate eyesight for driving?



The actual full eyesight rules are much more complex - the "read a plate" is just a simple, easy roadside rule-of-thumb. https://www.gov.uk/driving-eyesight-rules

Stoke

kmb500 wrote: »

How is not being able to read exactly what letter a number plate is, how is that the same as "not seeing what's there"? If you can see the number plate why does it matter whether you can actually read it? Its like saying well if you can see a car in front of you but can't tell what make of car it is, you shouldn't be driving!

Reading a number plate is such a stupid and irrelevant test. It is not an "eye test" by any definition. It is a "Can you read a number plate at 20 metres" test and it stands for NOTHING else.

When has your ability to read a car's number plate ever put you or others at risk? Serious question to anyone who can provide any example.

Rather than actually respond to your ridiculous post, here's a video of Colin Horsfall seconds before he ploughed into a 16 year old girl and killed her.

https://youtu.be/q4zKUNTYmuU

I wonder what mad Colin was thinking when he ploughed up the kerb (at speed) in that video? "Uhhh, I think I hit a pot hole" or maybe he thought it was an overtaking lane? One thing is true: Colin was told his eyesight was bad and he needed to knock it on the head. Colin decided his right to drive was more important than Cassie's right to live.

NBLondon

We're all agreed - the number plate test is incredibly basic. (In my case, I pass it easily without my glasses as I have one good eye and one astigmatic one. I did it on my test and then put my glasses on in the car as I have always driven with them on. OK I once tried without because they weren't in my jacket pocket as expected, went round the block and came back to get them as it was terrifying...)

The formal definition is a bit better but its quite possible that you could deteriorate slowly without realising and so some form of roadside check if there is any suspicion is a damn good idea.

kmb500

AdrianC wrote: »

Can you answer this, please, with a clear and straightforward, unambiguous answer - are you suggesting that the number plate test is unreasonably stringent, and that people who do not have the visual acuity to meet it may still have perfectly adequate eyesight for driving?

Yes. Correct.