Driving at night

[Richard]

Whatever the description, I cannot see with my own eyes the details in the night sky that other people with good eyesight can.

[Max Demian]

I've never seen it, probably because I've never attempted to see it anywhere dark enough.

Presumably it's visible because we are looking across the disc of the galaxy where there are a lot of stars in the same direction. There must be stars in the same direction near enough to be seen individually; why shouldn't they be said to be "in the Milky Way"?

[Robin]

Anyone can say that*. It just ain't the conventional meaning of the term - viz. the band of light from stars that /can't/ be resolved with the naked eye.

*I ought to add "unless the College of Policing have issued new guidance on non-crime hate speech" :(

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is not the meaning I have always understood.

[Tim Lamb]

Yes. I try to avoid wearing glasses for activities other than TV or reading etc.

Specsavers supply a fresh pair every 2 years except last time they said nothing had changed! I like to think this is a good thing:-)

[Tim Lamb]

Pedants:-)

Our Sun is situated in an outer limb of the galaxy. As has been said, some nearby stars are resolvable. Andromeda, as another visible galaxy only ever appears as a faint cloud of gas.

[The Natural Philosopher]

not clever IMHO. I couldn't drive without them

[Tim Lamb]

Umm.. Officer, I can read a number plate at 20m in good light... However, I am marginal at night with more lens exposed.

I find the frames interfere with peripheral vision. I guess someone used to driving wearing glasses, turns their head more.

[Dave Liquorice]

Ah but the Milky Way isn't points of light it's a general slight lightening of the otherwise the black sky.

Why go that far? Provided it's clear you can't miss it here and that's before your night vision has properly developed. Clear with little moon light there are so many stars visible it makes finding the constelations tricky, have to take my glasses off so I can only see the brighter ones that make up the constelations. B-)

TBH I find it slightly disturbing when in a city and you can only see half a dozen or so stars.

[polygonum_on_google]

I can see a number plate sufficiently in good light, but there is no way I would attempt to drive without my glasses.

Frames are not an issue. I wear frameless partly for this reason.

[Bob Eager]

You turn your head even more when wearing glasses and you have only one eye!

[Marland]

I don?t do the milage I used to since I retired but my solution to that was to install a spare rear view mirror on the top of the dash facing forward, most of the time it was angled well down but get somebody keeping their brake lights on too long it was easy to adjust so it reflected the red glare back into their car .

GH

[Marland]

Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now accepted to be the light used by cyclists, dipped the headlights which reduced the ability to see far ahead and slowed down. As the light got closer slowed further and kept well over to give room for the approaching cyclist but said to the missus ? is that sod wanting the whole road he looks like he is cycling on the wrong side? at that moment the pool from the dipped beam reached the position of the flashing lamp. to reveal a pedestrian completely dressed in dark clothing holding a flashing torch who was correctly following the old advice to face oncoming traffic on the same side. If he had held a steady torch I would have realised and not mistaken him for a cyclist approaching on the other side, fortunately we were going slow enough by then to easily move out and give him space but I have seem others race along the same lane when I was walking along it wearing a reflective tabard and a bright but steady torch who don?t slow much to pass you.

GH

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Why?

[polygonum_on_google]

Correction, "some cyclists". I am not convinced that flashing lights are a overall benefit. And, even if they are, there should also be a persistent light so that you can locate them between flashes.

But I do tend to use the (of course, non-flashing) front light on my bicycle almost any time I am riding on the road.

[fred]

+1

and bloody cyclops and those with one headlight high and one low

[Tim Lamb]

In message [e-mail]>, "Dave Plowman (News)" [e-mail]> writes

I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort leads to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes care of the rest.

>

[polygonum_on_google]

Interesting view.

People who have one leg shorter than the other can end up with horrible musculoskeletal issues because of the twisting induced. A simple heel lift/raised shoe, obviously an aid, can prevent that.

I'd suggest that it is important to consider each and every one of the aid options individually and not have blanket attitude.

As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But distance is another matter. I probably can pass the standard eyesight test but why on earth would I question whether I need glasses day by day, even minute by minute, depending on cloud cover? (Just went horribly dark here.) Of course I wouldn't. Wear them and be done.

But I purposely chose frameless with a cut-off at the bottom. Frameless avoids any possibility of a frame getting in the way (even if it is not a major issue for most people, most of the time). And the cut off means I can see the dashboard underneath the lens which is easier on my eyes than trying to focus through my glasses on something close.

[T i m]

<snip>

I'm the opposite but wear cheapo reading glasses all the time and can still / better read things at a distance than without them?

Quite.

For my last eye test I was given three prescriptions, one for closeup / fine work, one for everyday and one for distance and had 3 pairs of glasses made-up to suit (online, not that expensive).

I've never actually worn the prescription ones because they are heavier than these frameless eBay jobbies (they are all moulded as one from clear plastic) and I CBA to faff about changing glasses.

I have a few pairs of X4 mag (I think) that I use when doing close-up work but I'm rarely doing that unpredictably.

I have never had proper prescription glasses because the chances are they would last as long as most of my sunglasses, less than a day before I loose / sit on them / drop them. ;-(

Because I rarely take these readers off, they seem to last a long time ... or could it be because I have another 5 pairs 'spare'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Lamb]

Accepted.

The use of keyboard and mail has destroyed my handwriting as an example of skills lost or diminished.

OK. Now try working outdoors when it is raining. Farmers flat caps have a purpose beyond hiding their bald bits.

I like being able to tell the difference between a Rabbit and a Pigeon at 300m.

I use a corrective lens for TV or deskwork. The next time an optician advises a change I will consider frameless.