Over 70 driving eye test

That's because the film and development were optimised for daylight, probably around 6000K colour temperature, tungsten is about 2700K. I used to work on TV cameras in a fluorescent-lit workshop under a skylight, using a tungsten-halogen lamp for colour reference on charts. Zooming out and scattering a few bits of white paper around, they all looked white to me but the camera saw them as three very different colours in different places. The eye/brain has very efficient auto-white abilities. Anything it thinks 'ought to be white' it will see as white.

Fluorescent tubes made everything have a green cast.

I wish that worked for my teeth!

My last visit to Specsavers - 10 years ago - they had a different opthamologist who had no interest in my eye health and every interest in whether I "needed" varifocals. Which apparently I did.

When I left the examination he passed the paper to an assistant and said "varifocals". From that moment on the plan was I was not allowed to leave the store until I had chosen. I dodged that by inventing a child I needed to collect. However once free had *four* phone calls asking when was I returning to decide on what varifocals I needed.

You will notice I said "last" visit :)

Since then despite the progression of the glaucoma - noticeably in my now half blind left eye - my acuity has remained stable and my last optician (July) was emnphatic that I do not need varifocals.

I am typing this on a 1920x1080 monitor where I can read the rhs clock at

So to answer your question, they are predicated on flogging frames. And contact lenses. And all the gubbins to go with them.

But I can read it from 30 yards...

The field tests requried by the DVSA are not part of a standard diagnostic test.

In message <10jo5mj$3ll9t$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 11:50:43 on Thu, 8 Jan

My horror story was taking my late wife (on chemo and in a wheelchair) to Specsavers so they could test her vision and order new contact lenses (she'd worn them since a child).

When they came in, I went to collect them, and they insisted they could only hand them to the patient in person, because they wanted to show how to put them in the eye. Perhaps in reality they really wanted an opportunity to up-sell something else.

I said that was never going to happen, so they lost a sale.

I went slightly up-market, and bought 5 pairs for roughly £20 via Amazon (I later bought a second set). Only one pair has 'broken' (i.e. one of the nose pads went missing), but I do seem to have mislaid two other pairs.

Whose 'standard diagnostic test' ?.

The NHS will carry out a field of view test on each eye separately, and by varying the intensity of the flashing light. Most opticians will do the same and many will also have more clever kit to look more closely at the retina.

Specsavers (who have the exclusive DVSA contract) test both eyes simultaneously with the chin rest centrally positioned and only using full intensity flashes of light. You must not miss any flashes in the critical central area. You can miss a limited number at the periphery.

The worst near-miss I had a long time ago was driving down a country lane in the dark, with barely enough room for cars to pass each other when an old Landrover (ones with with the headlamps in the centre of the grill) came the other way.

At the very last minute I realised that it was towing a double horse trailer and only just noticed the wimpish light above the trailer offside mudguard with time to swerve onto the grass verge.

And the very people who have eye issues will find a way to cheat their way past this minor stumbling block. Only by making every 70+ person to visit specsavers will this be prevented.

One of my 2nd cousins developed Type 1 diabetes at the age of 11 and has been on insulin ever since, now 55.

They never allowed her to have a driving licence but gave her a medical bus pass instead.

I'm sure she should have been safe to drive, I'm not aware that she ever had blackouts.

So, the very same test as I am used to doing each year anyway?

The Beeb's "news writers" are incresingly allowed to get away with shoddy work.

Or perhaps the Beeb is leant upon by Government to subtly create social movements, such as prejudices.

I noted the day that when Brigitte Bardot died, the two things menioned (after her wildly successful sex-bomb career!) were that "in later life she been criticised for homophobic statements, and also for racist remarks". --- not a blessed word about her massive efforts to protect wildlife and nature. A later rews report, on radio 4, reverted to mentioning her more praiseworthy efforts in life, and did not menton the more negative ones.

Sorry for the thread sweve: I've had to write a CV for myself all afternoon: I was bored. (A CV! At my age! I worked in the same company for 38 years: I never used a CV after 1971!. I wish to continue doing voluntary work and one of the required document for the faceless farts who run our society now is to provide a CV.)

And a vast P.S.: there is no bigger supporter, or fan, of the BBC than I am. But I'm distressed at the way it is corrupting itself by shoddy work, thus making the job of the anti-BBC brigade so much easier.

AJ

To a point when you see them in isolation, but in the case of car headlights/DRLs you can easily see the difference between filament and LED lamps when seen together

I’ll go with the second of those comments, although I’m not sure that the government is behind the situation as the Beeb’s perfidy spans governments of all persuasions.

In the context of the Beeb, R4 is probably more measured in its approach but still has plenty of ’moments’. One R4 presenter has the approach of a chortling and dismissive laugh to cover the interviewee’s obviously-unwelcome comments.

Yes, they describe themselves as ’the most watched news channel’, and not ’the most trusted news channel’. But I maintain their work isn’t shoddy, it’s deliberate manipulation in the interests of perception management.

Ultimately one has to deal with the world not as we would like it to be, but as it is. The BBC is now rotten to the core - a process that started in the 1960s

- and needs to be cut down and stump ground.

There is no need for an anti-state, anti-science propaganda machine. We need a public service and information broiacaster.

I think you'll find that most people find the BBC pretty much worthwhile, overall. At least it finds time to laugh at itself (W1A), and news coverage has none of the hatred, intolerance, and nastiness that's pretty much all there is to alternatives like Fox and GB.

A peculiarity of our time is that left/right political extremes say pretty much the same thing.

If you take the time to pick the good bits, you'll find that at the BBC. Start with Matt Chorley and the News Agents.