A tractor, a chain, and one less eye.

[Trevor James]

We must have the same barber. Although, my barber told me this one 15 years ago.

[krw]

You haven't answered the question, "why"?

This is a different issue (presbyopia). I went, very quickly, from

20/10 or 20/15 vision to needing glasses very quickly, about six-seven years ago. I wore cheaters for a year and then directly to bifocals, for near vision[*]. I need bifocals to see monitors clearly (tops) and something shorter for reading (bottoms). I recently got a pair for distance. They're *expensive* progressives and I hate them. No matter what I'm doing, there is only one little spot that's in focus and anything off-axis is worse than no glasses. It makes driving a PITA, though I can't read the dash without them. Progressives work well for my "computer" glasses, though.

As I mentioned above, we're probably not a good candidate for laser surgery because glasses will be needed anyway. In my case, they probably could eliminate one set of glasses but that's not enough to bother. Assuming your wife is in the same boat, it probably wasn't a good choice either.

Why can't you use bifocals for work?

[*] I passed the driving test last year without glasses and got an 8-year license, though they were only supposed to give me a five-year. ;-)

[gonjah]

I'm not entirely sure. She says she needs them for up close yet she still uses them for driving. My guess is her vision is marginally better with glasses so she continues to wear them.

Seems that way to me but she seems to like the improvement. Maybe because she doesn't need glasses for everything now.

I'm not real sure about that either. I'm a document examiner and I have to go back and forth from the document to the computer then to something on my desk. Back and fourth.... so it's easier to wear reading glasses and look over them. The bifocals work very well for driving and I do need them. Actually, my glasses are progressives. I haven't tried bifocals in a long time but I don't think they were any better than the progressives are for me now. It would be interesting to try both now and see.

The problem seems to be my eyes aren't "bad," so sometimes it's more convenient to see w/o glasses. If I was legally blind w/o glasses then there wouldn't be an issue.

I memorized the New Mexico DMV eye chart but they changed it. I live in TX now. I can't pass the TX DMV chart w/o glasses.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Yeah, pollen, dust, that sort of thing is easily compensated for by our body. I'm talking the rarity like a fish hook or stone chip that does not wash out.

[krw]

If she needs them for both, they obviously screwed up. One or the other is normal because at some age the eye can no longer focus over a wide range. Every case of laser surgery I'm familiar with has perfectly corrected for one or the other (usually at the choice of the patient). Cataract surgery is similar.

She shouldn't need both, at all.

It sounds like your bifocals aren't set up for your work properly. I had my OD set mine for about 20" (top) and 10" (bottom - should be a little longer on the bottom), specifically for computer and desk work. I keep a pair of these at work, now, so I can switch. I rarely change back to the distance glasses during the day. It's fuzzy walking around but I can see enough to find the bathroom. ;-)

I'm much the same way but have found that "computer" bifocals (progressives, even better) are a vast improvement over single focus. They have to be specifically requested, though, and don't cover distance work so two pairs are needed.

I once walked into the NYS DMV for a license renewal. Evidently people were doing just that so they had an examiner at the front door who accosted everyone who entered and if they were doing something that needed an eye test, he did it right then. No chance to memorize it and then take the test. I was rather surprised and read the fifth line down instead of the fourth (missed the *BIG* 'E' on top). He said that if I could read that, easily, it really didn't matter if I could count. ;-)

[krw]

Are you saying that you have those hit you in the glasses daily? The point being that because glasses accumulate dings and grime doesn't imply that you would be blind without them. Experience tells us otherwise.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Ed Pawlowski:

I'm nearsighted: can't see the big "E" on the eye chart.

But with no glasses I can read a computer screen (if I move a little closer), I can read a book, I can read a map...

With corrective surgery, I would need glasses to do all those things.

Plus, I'd have to have prescription lenses in my safety glasses when working with tools.

Since I wear sunglasses outside most of the time (prescription sunglasses...) and, the rest of the time am glad for the added protection of plain glasses...

The only time that glasses are a hassle outside is on the water - as in windsurfing or paddling my surf ski. In those cases I use disposable contact lenses.

I can't, for the life of me, see why anybody in my situation would ever get corrective surgery.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [e-mail]:

The story I heard is that, after about 50-55 years of age *everybody* with normal vision needs reading glasses.

What supposedly happens is that the lens becomes increasingly turgid with age and the focusing muscles are less able to change it's shape to re-focus on close objects.

People who start out nearsighted luck out: mostly they can still see stuff that is close.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Ralph Mowery:

Almost all prescription glasses now are some kind of plastic - so they function as safety glasses. Probably not as well as dedicated safety glasses depending on the lens size... but they do offer protection against stuff flying into the eye.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Most of us can see things close that you would need a magnifying glass for. About the only redeeming value or nearsightedness.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Of course not, but some safety is a side effect of having to wear glasses. People do go blind every day from accidents and I'm not talking about industrial situations were safety glasses should have been worn.

They do not state if these injuries are with or without any protection or protection was ignored, but 2000 are treated every day.

My guess is most people would not put safety glasses on when opening a bottle of champagne, but people have sustained eye injuries. If you happen to wear eyeglasses, some injuries will be prevented.

You might think that the family home is a fairly unthreatening setting. And responses to a recent public survey commissioned by the American Academy of Ophthalmology show that people generally agree. ?Less than half of survey respondents mentioned the home ? especially the yard or garage ? as the most common site of serious eye injury. ?Only 35 percent of those surveyed always wear protective eyewear when doing home repair or projects.

However, medical statistics tell a different story: nearly half of all eye injuries each year occur in and around the home, and home-based injuries are increasing each year.

Eye Injury Risks in the House ?Using hazardous products and chemicals such as oven cleaner and bleach for cleaning and other chores (accidents involving common household products cause 125,000 eye injuries each year). ?Cooking foods can that can splatter hot grease or oil. ?Opening champagne bottles during a celebration. ?Drilling or hammering screws or nails into walls or hard surfaces like brick or cement; the screws or nails can become projectiles, or fragments can come off the surface. ?Using hot objects such as curling irons around the face; inadvertent contact with the user?s eyes can cause serious injury. ?Loose rugs and railings or other hazards that could cause falls or slips.

Injury Risks in the Yard ?Mowing the lawn. ?Using a power trimmer or edger. ?Clipping hedges and bushes.

Eye Injury Risks in the Garage or Workshop: ?Using tools (power or hand). ?Working with solvents or other chemicals. ?Any task that can produce fragments, dust particles or other eye irritants. ?Securing equipment or loads with bungee cords.

For all of these activities, it?s important to remember that bystanders also face significant risk and should take precautions against eye injuries too. This is particularly important for children who watch their parents perform routine chores in and around the home. Bystanders should wear eye protection too or leave the area where the chore is being done

[krw]

No, with corrective surgery you *might* need glasses to do different things. If you're still young, you probably wouldn't.

You don't have safety glasses now?

Again, if you're young you wouldn't need glasses at all (assuming successful surgery, of course).

[krw]

Right.

Turgid? AIUI, the focusing mechanism itself "locks up".

Not so much. They can't see distant things their whole life. That doesn't sound much like "luck" to me.

[krw]

Normal glasses do little to prevent this sort of thing.

It doesn't say much about this issue at all, then, does it?

So everyone should be forced to wear eyeglasses, whether they need it or not, right? It's for the children, after all.

No, it sounds like you're trying to justify your handicap as being superior. Silly.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Aside from side shields, they are every bit as effective as safety glasses in a front impact.

But it notes that there are a couple of thousand eye injuries needing treatment every year.

No, but there are times the average homeowner probably should put on a pair. Most of us think of safety on the job, less of us think about it at home.

Never thought of it as a handicap. I can do everything a perfectly sighted person can do with corrective lenses. One thing I can do better is see very small thing up close.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [e-mail]:

AFIK, the need for reading glasses is inevitable in all except the near-sighted. Young, yes... but, with a little luck, most people will make it to middle age and that's where the need for reading glasses sets in.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Ed Pawlowski:

In the mainframe computer days - before everybody had a PC on their desk

- I developed a corporate telephone book.

My own bias was 8.5 x 11 pages with the smallest type face (8 points) in order to get as many names as possible per page.

But when I distributed a few hundred samples in different page and font sizes I got a big surprise: the overwhelming majority of users wanted the pages small (so the book would fit under a desk phone) with a rather large (16 points - much larger than I'd ever dream of using myself) type face.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [e-mail]:

Can somebody elaborate on that? I can see the absence of side shields making them less effective, but that can't be the whole story.

[krw]

So it's a waste of money for a 20YO to get corrective surgery because he'll have to wear glasses in 30 years anyway? BTW, those glasses will only need to be corrected for "strength" (read: cheap). Astigmatism will be taken care of.

[krw]

Bullshit. Frames will get mangled and lenses broken. There's a lot more to safety glasses than normal glasses.

I'm sure that's true but irrelevant.

True but also irrelevant.

It certainly is.

You've just admitted it.