As there seems to be some expertise on glasses here; does anyone know if I can ascertain from my recent prescription whether my distance vision is above 0.5 on the Snellen scale?
I ask because although I always do wear glasses (varifocals) as I have got older my distance vision has improved and I can easily read number plates at 20 metres, though this wasn't the case when I was 17, and I have to make a driving licence application.
Do these help?
Is there a reference to v/a (visual acuity) on your prescription?
Usually 6/ something...
6/5 6/6 (same as 20/20) 6/9 6/12 etc.
And I think you may be referring to logmar? Conversion here,
Age 17, you couldn't read a number plate with the correct specs?
I didn't get specs until I did an RAF medical aged 17. I didn't know I needed them.
Thanks Brian that does help and confuses me at the same time as my SPH are around +1 yet they would need to be -0.75 to meet 0.5 Snellen by that comparison in the first link.
No just figures for SPH CYL AXIS Near ADD Inter ADD
No I had to first get glasses when I was 16 to get a bike licence, so for both my bike test at 16 and my car test at 17 I needed to wear glasses in order to read the number plate at the prescribed distance. Now I find I can read the number plates at 20m without glasses (and with them) and wonder whether to state that I don't require glasses on the application.
Ask your opticians what your corrected and uncorrected va's are.
You won't work it out from your prescription.
Back in the 60's when I first had glasses (and drove) I was always slightly irritated that opticians would deliberately under-correct youngsters, I assume the logic was that if they made the eyes try harder they would not deteriorate so quickly. I was very used to using microscopes and telescopes, so I knew what focus looked like.
On my motorbike test at 17, the sample plate was about 35 yards away and I couldn't quite get it right, although it was fine two or three paces closer. I played a lot of cricket in those days so could judge 22 yards pretty accurately. Also, it was the old black and silver plates in those days. I always considered reflectives (both front and rear) significantly easier to read, and was quite surprised that the driving criterion was not revised once they became ubiquitous.
IIRC it was.
I misread the plate on my bike test - mistook a D for an O. The examiner understood - I think me rattling it off at full speed in the NATO alphabet without hesitation as soon as he asked had already convinced him I didn't have a real problem.
A friend of mine was asked if he could read the plate on a car. He replied "I don't have to, it's mine" :)
These days I can still read the plate with no problem. But I need glasses for anything closer than about 10ft. I've even started wearing them for some TV programmes. Not all, because on some of them they merely let me see the encoder artefacts.
Andy
Yes that seems my best move
When the driving examiner wanted me to read a car number plate, I could but he wanted to go a bit closer. Perhaps we were to far from the car for him to see if I was right.
I see it is 20 metres now, rather than 25 yards. So actually it has got easier (21.9 yards) for the clearer plates.
Aren't the numbers a bit smaller now there are 7 characters rather than the 6 before 1963?
Reduced to fit the EU logo IIRC.
Another benefit of Brexit! We can make them bigger! :-)
The driving requirement is to my mind marginal - especially as we get older. If your optician gives you specs for distance vision - ie everyday use - I'd say you should wear them when driving.
Forcing muscles to work when not needed to may or may not extend their working life. If it did, athletes would all live longer due to exercising their heart muscles more. But muscle types ain't all the same. And the ability for the eye to focus (accommodate) seems to be little do do with use - more just time.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.