Driving eyesight rules.

[Michael Chare]

Am I right in thinking that in the past I had to be able to read a car number plate at 25 yards whereas now it is only 20m? I am not sure if the size of the number plate characters have changed.

[Steve Walker]

The character sizes were reduced to allow for an EU/GB logo without increasing the plate size. I am pretty sure that the distance was reduced to allow for the reduced character size.

SteveW

[Brian Gaff]

In some countries there is also a field of vision test to see if older people, in particular, have blind spots. You look at a light and press a button if you see a flash. In my view this sort of thing should be done for people if they drive or not it might catch a lot of early eye problems that can be treated. Brian

[Harry Bloomfield]

Brian Gaff brought next idea :

I had that (peripheral vision test), as part of my normal eye test just a few months ago. I sailed through the test. They have you look at a cross on the screen and press a button when you see a tiny light near the edge - the button failed to work every time.

[alan_m]

A lot of opticians perform a field of vision test but often administered by poorly trained staff. They fail to tell you to concentrate on only looking forward and not to scan the whole field of the screen. The last time I went to Vision Express it was obvious that the machine makes a just perceptible buzzing noise before flashing up the random timed/spaced lights.

At an opticians the test will be performed in a few minutes. Have the same type of test as part of a appointment with a consultant and the test takes nearer 30 minutes.

I would hate to rely on poorly trained staff at high street opticians making the decisions on driving ability based on my experience of their field of visions testing.

[Jethro_uk]

Presumably when stopped, the police officer starts by selecting a target in excess of the requirements, and it would only come down to a tape measure if there's any doubt.

It's worth reinforcing that these are *minimum* requirements, and that there are plenty of other vision defects that might disqualify a driver that can't be picked up at the roadside.

I have glaucoma (hopefully well managed) and had to take a DVLA field test (completely unlike a diagnostic one) to be able to continue driving. The result was "no endorsements", and since my vision has remained the same (touch wood) I've not repeated the test. However I am aware any change in my condition would probably require it.

Interestingly enough, my visual acuity has improved with age. While I do wear glasses for driving, I don't actually need to. I can easily read a number plate down the road - well over 20m. Which is why I note that the current requirement is a minimum. I much prefer driving with glasses

*on* ... so there are people out there who are whose vision must be worse than mine ....

[Max Demian]

The ones that show multiple lights may have a warning sound. You tell the operator how many you see and where they are if you miss any.

The other kind show only one light at a time (in random position and at random-ish time) and you press a button when you see it.

[Bob Eager]

It's done in this country, although not specifically for driving (although that is now being discussed).

I had > In some countries there is also a field of vision test to see if older

[Jethro_uk]

If the DVLA have requested it, then it has to be a specially registered professional (they do the tests on contract for the DVLA).

They're not using an Amstrad machine, it notes to the operator a "loss of gaze". They also work out false positives.

The DVLA spec for field vision is actually quite technical. It details the machine settings (both eyes are tested at once, unlike a standard test) and the threshold for false positives that is acceptable - too high, the test has to be repeated. Still too high ? You've failed.

[Tim+]

You say that, but how legally enforceable are any defects outside the basic number plate reading exercise?

My impression is that as long as you pass the basic test, you can legally drive. An optician can strongly advise that you shouldn?t if you have other defects but you?re not actually breaking the law.

I may be wrong of course.

Tim

[Jethro_uk]

In which case, how come the DVLA have strict criteria for driving vision including field defects ?

Ultimately it's something that the individual is supposed to take responsibility for. Which is probably the weakness in the system, since generally, people aren't very responsible.

So any issues can only be dealt with in hindsight.

I was responsible contacting the DVLA when my consultant advised it. He also mentioned he knew for a fact I'd be an exception :(

[newshound]

I always thought the big anomaly was when reflective plates came in. They are *much* more readable than the old black and silver ones, but the distance remained at 25 yards.

I still remember my bike test, when I was initially asked to read one of the old ones at about 35 yards, which had me struggling. (In those days, opticians significantly under-corrected short sighted youngsters, the theory was that this "encouraged" eyes to degrade more slowly).

[bert]

Considering how long ago this requirement was first introduced makes one wonder just how relevant it is to the ability to see adequately for the purpose of driving. Would it perhaps be better to specify the distance at which one can see the an object the size of a child for example? (Stopping distance at

30mph is 75 feet).

[Josh Nack]

Trouble with that approach is that they really need to be able to see something the size of a cricket ball coming out between cars because there might well be a child coming out after it it. And you also have the complication of whether the ball contrasts with the road too.

(Stopping distance at