OT: DVLA

I'm told that with 6/6 I am allowed to fly a private plane. And since 6/5 is a bit better...

Just as, as a driver in danger of losing your licence, if only temporarily over this its any drivers interests who thinks they might fail to test themselves. I'm sure they'll be able to work out a rough approximation of the distance as well as plod.

That's for you to find out.

Presumably to succeed the challenger would need to pass a later 20 metre test under optimum conditions. And so the probablility of such a challenge ever having been made let alone having succeeded will depend on how unrepresentative the first test was. I very much doubt plod would deliberately select "difficult" plates and would probably use a bit of discretion as to how succesful the testee was say 6 characters correct out of seven - try a different plate as they would want to avoid any paperwork. Plod will probably also take note of any glasses being worn at the time of the original test.

The tests can only be carried out in daylight, and if after self testing a person fails then its probably advisable for them to act on this information. If only to the extent of lashing out £1` for a pair of "test passing" specs from a poundshop.

Indeed. So are you suggesting that people should be allowed to drive after an accident despite suffering from temporarily impaired vision ?

michael adams

...

I do test myself regularly, but without my glasses just in case I ever need to drive without them, although I always use them. I have always been just on the right side with distance vision and although my close up vision is deteriorating, my distance vision seems to be holding for now.

I go to the optician anyway, but its good to check in-between.

I thought that they only had reading glasses, not distance ones? I could well be wrong though.

There is a difference between advising a person suffering temporary vision problems due to trauma that they shouldn't drive until it improves and that maybe they should visit A&E to make sure that there is no permanent damage and taking their licence away on the spot and requiring them to undergo testing, get a letter and reapply to the DVLA before driving again!

It'd also be bit obvious to the police when someone who's been in a crash is panicking because they suddenly couldn't see properly and I'm sure that under those circumstances, they'd want to get them to hospital and checked out there and then.

SteveW

You're a policeman. You've just advised somebody suffering temporary vision problems due to trauma that they shouldn't drive until it improves and that maybe they should visit A&E to make sure that there is no permanent damage.

They fail to heed your advice. As they're perfectly entitled to do. And then five minutes later are involved in an accident in which two people are killed.

At the time you gave the advice was your primary responsibility towards the driver, and upholding their rights as far as possible ? Or towards other road users or anyone else who may have been killed or injured as a result of a subsequent accident, conswquent to their not following your advice ?

In which case the question of advising anyone of anything doesn't actually arise. And depending on the results of any examination the drivers licence may be suspended.

michael adams

...

Jethro_uk explained :

Back in the bad old days, I had to go to hospital with some metal in my eye, wearing an eye patch for a while, but had to drive. I did wonder if I was breaking the law in driving.

Steve Walker presented the following explanation :

My understanding is that they are just simple glasses with a diopter value, rather than the 'reading glasses' they are sold as. Providing both eyes match and you know the diopter value you need for distance, £1 shop glasses are fine. My eyes are just marginal for distance, but I choose to wear some prescribed distance glasses for the slight improvement they make to reading distant road signs. I keep a matching pair of £1 shop ones in the glove box as spares.

No just the period of middle age :(

SteveW

They are perfectly capable of stopping someone who they think might be a temporary danger from driving - without taking their licence. Taking their licence does not mean taking the card or paper licence away, it means officially suspending it, which may mean weeks or even months of being unable to drive, which is not a thing to do lightly.

The way you are treating it, they'd take away the licence of someone who was too tired to drive, had a severly bad cold that might affect their driving, had smashed their glasses in the impact of a crash. Now they might advise such a person not to drive and they might stop them and charge them with driving while unfit if they attempted to drive, but they would not take away their licence for being tired, ill or having just broken their glasses. Nor should they if someone's eyesight is temporarily affected by impact in a crash.

See above.

You were the one saying that it should be taken away there and then at the roadside if they failed the numberplate test, regardless of temporary vision effects due to a crash.

Even if the hospital advised that the eyesight was damaged there'd be no reason to take away the licence if the advice was that it was temporary. Temporary conditions only require people to refrain from driving, they do not require the surrendering of their licence.

SteveW

In my case it's not what I had. I had a complete eye check and retinal scan at the Kent & Canterbury after complaining of headaches. Nothing wrong, but they did say my eyeballs are a funny shape (WTF?) so *if* I were to develop glaucoma in the *future*, it would be painful. Preventative treatment is to use a laser to punch a hole in the iris in each eye.

Because he's a pirate king.

If it's still changing it may be due to incipient cataracts.

There's a detailed description somewhere on the DVLA website. One eye is OK for driving *if* there is good enough peripheral vision to the side without an eye.

Probably not. I *think* people with only one (working) eye are allowed to drive. Mind you, someone who had lost the sight in one eye many years ago has had a long time to get used to it and to learn coping strategies, whereas someone who suddenly becomes one-eyed because the other one is covered up may well have a harder time adjusting to limited field of view and loss of depth perception.

Well the police *seize* uninsured cars leaving the driver to walk home. I am pretty sure there are powers somewhere which allow them to also prevent a driver whose capability is *suspected to be impaired* at the roadside. After all, the breathalyser is not a definitive measurement and yet permits the police to arrest a driver.

I'm all for civil liberties and the rights of man, but I also don't want anyone to be mown down by a driver whose eyesight was not up to standard.

Acute, maybe. Generally glaucoma is very subtle and unnoticed (until it's too late).

Yeah, well ... there's a problem that the human body is seriously good at repairing damage. Any form of surgical intervention for glaucoma runs the ongoing risk that it will heal up. And it's not something they can repeat forever. Current thinking is it can be done twice ... after that you're plain out of luck.

I've heard of that. Did it work, or were the Russians afraid to complain?

Max Demian has brought this to us :

I don't know much about glasses - are there negative diopter values?

Was it to specifically reduce IOP ? What were your before and after readings ?