Police to check driver's eysight

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

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

Because of the variables involved (lighting, accuracy of distance, the specific letters / digits on the plate & so on) there isn't an exact equivalence between the number plate test and a Snellen chart.

Bear in mind that the letters and font used on a Snellen chart are chosen specifically for the purpose, and lighting is (should be) carefully controlled for both brightness and evenness across the chart.

DVLA guidance is that someone with a measured acuity of 6/12 (20/40 in old money) is very likely to pass the number plate test, someone with measured 6/24 (20/80) is very likely to fail. In between those is variable.

Stoke

To me, it seems bizarre that anyone would be opposed to this particular move. I've walked around today looking at various cars, all shapes and sizes, in different light and lighting angles from various distances, some shorter and longer than 20 metres, and not once have I been unable to read the numberplate. OK, I might not be able to read a numberplate from 100+ metres, but I reckon I was able to read one from 30 metres, maybe more. I'd be fairly confident that if PC Plod pulls me and asks me to read the numberplate, 'light variances' will not be stopping me.

I wonder if those strongly against this are the kind of people who might fail a routine check? Perhaps time to get an eye test...... just playing devils advocate mind. You can even get glasses like John Lennon wore.... it's not all bad.

Come on people, let's get on board. We don't want another Colin Horsfall do we? We don't need to be mowing down innocent people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/pensioner-drove-despite-poor-eyesight-jailed-killing-girl-3/

Just from the article above, not only did John Place not see the little girl, he didn't even know there was a crossing at all, he didn't know he had hit something, and he had to be flagged down by another motorist. Like I said, probably thought he had hit a pothole. Sounds like an eye test might have been useful.... oh wait, he had also failed an eye test. The story above involving Mr Place is made sickeningly worse by the fact he has neither apologised nor shown remorse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-19205192

Although this fella killed one, some soft as !!!! judge decided to give him a free pass and let him enjoy his glory days in the sun. Unfortunately, the 28 year old he hit was given a life sentence.

How many more times does this have to happen? No, I'm not some lunatic right wing nutter. This is common sense now. I'm not for randomly revoking random elderly drivers licenses, but in each of these cases, the people involved (usually male, not that it matters) were told "Don't drive, you are dangerous" and they decided their trip to the Church coffee meeting was far more important than the life of the various innocent people they kill or injure. How selfish must you be, that after being told you are putting innocent peoples lives at risk, you are so self-important that you continue to drive. My former partner spend almost 2 years off the road because of epilepsy and I can assure you, she would have been far safer than some of the elderly drivers who continue to cause havoc on our roads. She voluntarily surrendered her license (despite not actually having too as it was undiagnosed). That is called being unselfish.

It might seem like I am age bashing..... I'm not but it is ludicrous that someone can operate a piece of killing equipment for over 60 years without any kind of re-test or performance reviews. You would never have that in industry. If an elderly person is safe to drive, they will pass the eye test with no problem, they will operate the vehicle with no problem, and they will continue to enjoy the freedoms a car bring. Ultimately though, if they are found to be dangerous, they must have their license revoked..... much like drink drivers, drug drivers, epileptics, etc.

EdGasketTheSecond

Stoke; no-one is arguing with what you say but it must be a fair, uniform, and accurate test. I maintain that some plods by the roadside with a random number plate in goodness knows what conditions is not a sufficiently accurate test upon which to revoke someone's licence.

Car_54

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Stoke; no-one is arguing with what you say but it must be a fair, uniform, and accurate test. I maintain that some plods by the roadside with a random number plate in goodness knows what conditions is not a sufficiently accurate test upon which to revoke someone's licence.

Call me niaive, but I imagine a traffic police officer will have been trained and will have to follow a procedure covering choice of numberplate, light conditions etc.

There is nothing new about this test, it has been in use for the best part of a century.

Stoke

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Stoke; no-one is arguing with what you say but it must be a fair, uniform, and accurate test. I maintain that some plods by the roadside with a random number plate in goodness knows what conditions is not a sufficiently accurate test upon which to revoke someone's licence.

Like I said, what's the alternative ?

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

Call me niaive, but I imagine a traffic police officer will have been trained and will have to follow a procedure covering choice of numberplate, light conditions etc.

There is nothing new about this test, it has been in use for the best part of a century.

Come on what training?

A tape measure at 20 metres and clear daylight.

AndyMc.....

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Stoke; no-one is arguing with what you say but it must be a fair, uniform, and accurate test. I maintain that some plods by the roadside with a random number plate in goodness knows what conditions is not a sufficiently accurate test upon which to revoke someone's licence.

If you're that worried go to spec savers.

Joe_Horner

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Stoke; no-one is arguing with what you say but it must be a fair, uniform, and accurate test. I maintain that some plods by the roadside with a random number plate in goodness knows what conditions is not a sufficiently accurate test upon which to revoke someone's licence.

The trouble is, the standard for a normal car licence is actually legally defined as reading a current standard number plate at 20m (or 20.5 for older plates). It isn't a "quick and easy check" of the standard, it IS the standard and there's no direct correlation between it and a measurement on a standard eye test.

So there simply isn't a "more uniform and accurate" test that can be applied until and unless they change that. Which would mean a change in the law by Parliament.

But, to change that, they'd have to incorporate the new standard into the driving test or the licence application, which would mean paying for an opticians eye test in addition to the current fees.

Regardless of the possible merits of that I can't see many MPs supporting something that would be so deeply unpopular.

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The trouble is, the standard for a normal car licence is actually legally defined as reading a current standard number plate at 20m (or 20.5 for older plates). It isn't a "quick and easy check" of the standard, it IS the standard and there's no direct correlation between it and a measurement on a standard eye test.

Tell that to the government, because they seem to think it's a lot more precise and complicated.

<points back a page>

AdrianC wrote: »

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

AndyMc..... wrote: »

If you're that worried go to spec savers.

There seems to be a lot of worry.......... Considering this move is a very positive one and will benefit safe and legal drivers, I find myself coming to the conclusion that those who are so opposed to it, are perhaps worried that they might fail.

At the end of the day.... get a pair of glasses, and drive till your hearts content. Like I said, I aren't a fan of coppers, AndyMc will tell you that, but they aren't going to pinch your glasses and break your headlight like some old western film. They'll ask you to pull over, and they'll administer the test. As the clued up discerning driver who has his or her eye test every year or so (usually paid by their employee), they will no doubt pass first time with flying colours, smile, thank the officer for doing the public a genuinely useful service and be on their way.

The only people who don't pass, are the kind of people that shouldn't be driving. Can a copper measure 20 metres off the top of their head? No, probably not, but they can estimate..... and let's be honest, I suspect if you're there or thereabouts, they'll probably send you on your way but suggest you take an eye test, just to be sure. It won't be "well this copper reckons it was roughly 20 metres, but it actually it was more like 40". What they are trying to stop, are these absolute bumbling fools who mow down innocent 16 year old girls, who it turns out, failed an eye test because they could only see about 3ft ahead of themselves.

It's !!!!ing ludicrous that it has even taken this long for such rules to be actually adopted. Mind you, it took years to get drink driving laws enforced in this country because "some woman was encroaching on a mans rights".

It's not a right, it's a privilege and like all privileges, it can be taken away. We take licenses off kids all the time, for doing 36 in a 30 twice in 2 years or for getting caught with a small amount of marijuana in their system and rightly so. Let's start dealing with other lethal drivers who continue to plague our roads because our laws haven't caught up yet. This is a very good start..... Long way to go, but this is a very good piece of news for me.

Anyway, for those who don't like it, suck it up and go get some specs, it's happening. Like I said, John Lennon looked, well nah, he didn't, I never got that look whatsoever but some people did and just think, the wife can be like Yoko..... :laugh: