Police to check driver's eysight

Car_54

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.

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.

AFAiK there is a direct correlation: the number plate test is calculated to be equivalent to Snellen 6/12.

The point about the roadside test is that it checks the drivers vision at the time, whereas an optician’s certificate does not. It is surprisingly common for people to be prescribed glasses or lenses, but to be confident they don’t need them to drive. Or to simply forget to wear them.

Stoke

Car_54 wrote: »

AFAiK there is a direct coral action: the number plate test is calculated to be equivalent to Snellen 6/12.

The point about the roadside test is that it checks the drivers vision at the time, whereas an optician’s certificate does not. It is surprisingly common for people to be prescribed glasses or lenses, but to be confident they don’t need them to drive. Or to simply forget to wear them.

It's worth noting that one of the articles I linked to, the man had already been prescribed glasses by an optician, but decided it wasn't necessary for him to wear them because he was like a wise old guru???? Err, anyway, yeah that was right before he killed someone.

It's really !!!!ing simple and I don't get why people are struggling. If you can hardly see past your nose, then you shouldn't be driving. If you are aware that you have !!!! eye sight go and sort a set of glasses. They're not even expensive these days. With a prescription you get two decent pairs for about 40 quid online.

#TeenLivesMatter

[Deleted User]

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Have you any other markers?

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

Just the usual ones: "not for hire or reward" etc. I see that 01 is listed on the DVLA website, so perhaps they're just unaware that I use spex. I can read a plate at 20m without them though, so I don't think the test is particularly stringent.

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

AFAiK there is a direct coral action: the number plate test is calculated to be equivalent to Snellen 6/12.

The point about the roadside test is that it checks the drivers vision at the time, whereas an optician’s certificate does not. It is surprisingly common for people to be prescribed glasses or lenses, but to be confident they don’t need them to drive. Or to simply forget to wear them.

No, that (the 6/12) is an approximate guide for "anyone better than this will pass" but many people who score far lower on a Snellen chart will still be able to pass the official number plate standard. It's only when you get to 6/24 that it's almost certain you'd fail.

The blurry line between pass & fail is because the Snellen test uses very specific letter forms (technically optotypes that happen to resemble letters) which are harder to resolve than the number plate fonts. Effectively they're designed to be easy to confuse, while the plate font is intentionally made hard to confuse and easier for your brain to work out what it "must be" even when you can't see it clearly.

Nilrem

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.

They don't revoke it permanently though, they contact DVLA who will then send you to a specified option who will then do a full test and give them the results.

At most you lose the ability to drive for a few days/weeks whilst your borderline eyesight is checked fully (It'll be suspended/revoked pending a test), but I suspect the police will be under instructions and trained in how/when the light is acceptable.

I suspect if you fail the roadside test under any reasonable conditions, you'll fail the test in the opticians by a large margin.

My father had eye problems for all his life, and from about the age of 40 was doing a DVLA eye test every 3 years, he normally got his eye tested every year to 18 months as his sight did change and he was serious about taking care of his sight but the DVLA test was at a specific opticians in addition to those.

To be honest I'm amazed the opticians in question in the case that led to this change in the law hadn't reported the old guy, IIRC both my father's normal optician and hospital consultant asked "do you still drive" when his eyes got bad enough for him to have been unsafe (he'd given up about 5-10 years before that point as he wasn't happy with it), with the strong suggestion that they'd have let DVLA know, this was about 15 years ago.

Personally I'm strongly of the opinion that if you are driving when your eyesight is too bad to pass the test you should probably be done under dangerous driving, or at the very least careless driving in addition to anything else, as it's pretty much impossible for you to not know, if you've ever paid attention to your responsibilities as a driver.

neilmcl

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.

I don't think a police officer performing a random stop, or otherwise, can control the conditions required for an accurate and fair test.

neilmcl

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.

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.

Like I said earlier, most other developed countries manage to do it without any further cost to the driver and visits to an optician.

MikeWhite

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't think a police officer performing a random stop, or otherwise, can control the conditions required for an accurate and fair test.

This is the bit I have trouble with. The linked article says they will "test eyesight of all drivers stopped"
What happens at night, in fog etc?

kmb500

AdrianC wrote: »

So what would you suggest as an appropriate minimum eyesight standard, and how can it be easily checked roadside?


When did you last have it tested?

I don't know what the standard should be and I don't know how to check it roadside. I am not a scientist.
Why would it need to be checked roadside anyway? You compared it to a police officer asking a drunk driver to move their hand to their nose or something. That might indicate that they're drunk, but that's not evidence enough to remove their licence. It indicates they're drunk, and then the police use a breathalyser to give them a stronger indication - and even a breathalyser is not enough to ban someone from the road, they then have to take them in to do a more thorough medically approved test - taking blood samples.

This is much more thorough than the number plate check. Number plate reading would be fine as an indication but then they should take the person to a police station and do a throuoguh, medically sound eye exam to see whether they're able to drive.

kmb500

facade wrote: »

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.

Thank you, someone else with half a brain in this thread. How does being able to read a number plate have any bearing at all on your ability to see hazards as a driver?