Police to check driver's eysight

AdrianC

neilmcl wrote: »

I have to agree that the current "test" is a bit crude. I don't see why we don't so what they do in most other countries and perform a proper visual acuity test using an eye chart.

Is there a big difference, so long as the proportions are correct?

AndyMc.....

neilmcl wrote: »

I have to agree that the current "test" is a bit crude. I don't see why we don't so what they do in most other countries and perform a proper visual acuity test using an eye chart.

Whilst they won't be able to carry one in every car some forces have an accurate device to carry out a more than acceptable level of eye sight testing.

Acceptable in that it will mirror an opticians prescription.

kmb500

Stoke wrote: »

It has everything to do with this. Colin failed an eye test and was told by a police officer to stop driving. In fact, according to the article I read, some policeman spent 2 hours trying to convince him yet arrogant Colin simply wouldn't be told. If that officer had been able to take Colin's license, a 16 year old girl would have continued with her day and we'd not be having this discussion. Her death, as unfortunate as it was, has luckily brought about this change.

When you get caught drink driving, you lose your license. You have an epileptic seizure, you lose your license. When you are unfit to drive YOU SHOULD LOSE YOUR LICENSE!!! I hate to sound cruel, but some geriatric with bad eyesight shouldn't have been on the road to kill that poor girl.

I don't often back the police.... But this is truly excellent news and no doubt measures will be brought in to ensure its not abused by anyone who is a bit dodgy.

Oh ....... and if your eyes are a bit cruddy like you've suggested, please go the opticians..... It might only be a a Ford Fiesta but you're in a killing machine. Glasses might suit you?

I don't doubt that guy should not be on the road. As should a lot of OAPs. What does that have to do with reading a number plate?

neilmcl

AdrianC wrote: »

Is there a big difference, so long as the proportions are correct?

Looking at a number plate, outside will give you an approximate level of vision and will never be as accurate as reading a Snellen eye chart in a controlled environment.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC wrote: »

In the UK.

If you wore glasses for your driving test, then you will have 01 on your licence.

There's no 01 on my licence, and the DVLA medical centre know all about my eyesight because they confiscated my licence for 5 months whilst it was evaluated.

AndyMc.....

jack_pott wrote: »

There's no 01 on my licence, and the DVLA medical centre know all about my eyesight because they confiscated my licence for 5 months whilst it was evaluated.

Have you any other markers?

Not that it matters, you either pass the test or you don't.

facade

Is there any requirement for your optician to mention if your visual acuity is below 0.5 at your eye test?

[Deleted User]

kmb500 wrote: »

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.

Reading 75mm high text at 20m is roughly equivalent to seeing a 1.5m high car a quarter of a mile away, but a lot more convenient to check at the side of the road. It only takes 13s to cover 400m on the motorway.

facade

jack_pott wrote: »

Reading 75mm high text at 20m is roughly equivalent to seeing a 1.5m high car a quarter of a mile away, but a lot more convenient to check at the side of the road. It only takes 13s to cover 400m on the motorway.

I get what you mean, but this can't actually be a correct comparison can it? Having the acuity to read the text and accurately distinguish its shape is harder than just being able to see something. A blurry car at 1/4 mile is still a car you've seen, and can react to, a blurry letter 75mm high at 20m is still a 75mm tall object that you can see at 20m, the sensational stories quoted were people who probably couldn't have seen the car that the number plate was on at 20m.


I'm in the "We need proper testing" camp, it isn't right that if you can't make out a dirty numberplate at 20 plus metres with a low sun behind the car reflecting off a wet road surface that you lose your licence, when there is a scientifically measurable standard of acuity that isn't that hard to perform.


Archaic that even if you pass the acuity test, if you can't read that dirty plate in low sun you still don't meet the standards. (And your acuity has to be a lot worse to qualify as partially sighted too)

Stoke

kmb500 wrote: »

I don't doubt that guy should not be on the road. As should a lot of OAPs. What does that have to do with reading a number plate?

It's simply a crude method of ascertaining your abilities. Without bringing mandatory eye tests into the mix, how would you go about testing?