Compulsory Eye Tests for Drivers

[Thomas Foreman]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/6880658/drivers-ta...

Apologies for sharing an article from the Sun*

Would definitely make driving a lot safe and give some of us added extra peace of mind. Was driving home from a friend's house years ago and was very nearly merged into by an elderly driver! Been one of my biggest fears of driving ever since... Young drivers not checking their blind spots and merging into me or elderly drivers being blind on the spot and not seeing me!!

[mmm-five]

I completed a survey about this a good few months ago.

Wasn't for the Sun or GEM though - I think it was for IAM.

[cptsideways]

I'd estimate 25% of drivers would fail the basic test, its gotten worse since satnav means you don't need to see the roadsigns.

[Thomas Foreman]

cptsideways said:

I'd estimate 25% of drivers would fail the basic test, its gotten worse since satnav means you don't need to see the roadsigns.

Well, I mean you do still need to be able to read number plates, accurately estimate stopping distances, see other drivers etc. The use of sat navs doesn't really justify more people driving with worse eyesight imo.

[cptsideways]

Thomas Foreman said:

cptsideways said:

I'd estimate 25% of drivers would fail the basic test, its gotten worse since satnav means you don't need to see the roadsigns.

Well, I mean you do still need to be able to read number plates, accurately estimate stopping distances, see other drivers etc. The use of sat navs doesn't really justify more people driving with worse eyesight imo.

Ask any optician

Drivers used to come in for a test as they could not see the road signs, they now don't need to go in for that reason.

My observation is based on sitting next to many drivers, ask them to follow a roadsign & its obvious they can't read them, however point them in the direction they need to go & they are fine. My guess of 25% was pretty good, its actually more like 30% going by research.

Consider a third of drivers are driving like its thick fog outside its pretty scary!

https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/driving-...

[Thomas Foreman]

Oh wow, that's actually quite shocking! Rather silly considering an eye test is only a tenner - that amount is absolutely nothing considering it could save both your life as well as other motorists' lives.

[CarKing]

A bride-to-be from Rochford, Essex, was killed by a blind driver sometime back, joining a list that consists of a girl who was killed by a 78-year-old driver who was blind in one eye, and it was always time the "outdated laws on drivers' medical fitness" needed some reviewing.

[markymarkthree]

Thomas Foreman said:

Oh wow, that's actually quite shocking! Rather silly considering an eye test is only a tenner - that amount is absolutely nothing considering it could save both your life as well as other motorists' lives.

Or free if over 60.

[WJNB]

Absolutely, especially if you're 97, think you're above the law & don't need to use a seatbelt & have made a career out of being rude.

[Toaster]

cptsideways said:

I'd estimate 25% of drivers would fail the basic test, its gotten worse since satnav means you don't need to see the roadsigns.

and there lays the problem for those with 20/20 vision and those who don't if you think a Sat nav provides all the clues you need when driving FFS.

[HocusPocus]

Everyone should have an annual eye test (free on NHS) as a condition of driving irrespective of age.

Followed and reported a driver once for hitting the kerb every 200m and swinging across road into oncoming carriageway. Police pulled driver over when he pulled off on red light with squad car watching from behind. Elderly person advised to get eye test.... pretty scary thinking what life changing outcome it could have been!

[RobDickinson]

Nz has eye tests when you get a license or renew (least every 10 years).

It's a simple setup in the aa/license center rather than a full optician thing.

[LarsG]

I have a medical every year for my pilots licence, why not a medical to drive?

[marshallbrown]

I think its a great step took by Government.

[LordGrover]

Toaster said:

cptsideways said:

I'd estimate 25% of drivers would fail the basic test, its gotten worse since satnav means you don't need to see the roadsigns.

and there lays the problem for those with 20/20 vision and those who don't if you think a Sat nav provides all the clues you need when driving FFS.

Re: 20/20 vision...
I've worn specs or contacts for most of my life.
As advancing age and decrepitude has set in I found myself needing to remove my specs to read - not too much of an issue unless I'm wearing contact lenses. Have tried various multi-focal lenses with varying degrees of success.
The best I could achieve whilst still being able to read with them was '20/20' according to optician.
Sounds great, until you compare with my vision with specs or contacts - which is very noticeably better.
I wouldn't consider driving with just 20/20 vision - it's just not good enough.

[Peter3442]

Vision and visual perception are more complicated than reading a number plate or passing the simplest eye test. For example, someone with serious glaucoma with a visual field reduced to a spot may well pass the number plate test. Someone with macular degeneration might have difficulty with the number plate, but be relatively safe to drive. Perhaps psychological or attitude tests are as worthwhile when there are individuals who think it's acceptable to drive out of a side road when they cannot see due to the sun in their eyes.

[drsmith7725]

The Highway Code says drivers must have a visual acuity of at least 0.5 and be able to read a car number plate from a distance of 20 metres (with glasses or contact lenses, if necessary), the only time eyesight is checked by a driving assessor is during a practical driving test.

[Gilbertrachet]

I don't really understand why every driver isn't required to take a full medical every 10 years for cars & bikes.I drove artic tankers for nearly 30 years, had oil company medical every year & DVLA medical every 5 years over 45. I regularly drive at night on unlit country roads & follow people most nights who brake almost to a standstill when vehicle headlights approaching in opposite direction {not on main beam). Loss of night vision should be tested as well as visual accuracy.

Edited by Gilbertrachet on Monday 4th February 17:26

[Pica-Pica]

drsmith7725 said:

The Highway Code says drivers must have a visual acuity of at least 0.5 and be able to read a car number plate from a distance of 20 metres (with glasses or contact lenses, if necessary), the only time eyesight is checked by a driving assessor is during a practical driving test.

Don’t quote the Highway Code, quote the relevant Law.

[Gilbertrachet]

Peter3442 said:

Vision and visual perception are more complicated than reading a number plate or passing the simplest eye test. For example, someone with serious glaucoma with a visual field reduced to a spot may well pass the number plate test. Someone with macular degeneration might have difficulty with the number plate, but be relatively safe to drive. Perhaps psychological or attitude tests are as worthwhile when there are individuals who think it's acceptable to drive out of a side road when they cannot see due to the sun in their eyes.

Psychological / attitude tests would be interesting don't know how you would do that as people who get angry behind the wheel can be completely placid & calm when not driving.