Crackdown: licences immediately revoked if a driver fails a roadside sight test

[Bonefishblues]

I've been to several over the years, with mixed experiences.

[al_yrpal]

Our Vision Express our very thorough and use all the latest kit. Specsavers locally are awful IME, fobbed me off when I complained at unsuitable prescription. At 76 my eyesight is perfect with glasses although I find it better to lose them when driving at night. I strongly agree with the Police action because I know folk who drive with seriously bad vision.

Al

[thirdcrank]

I can't help feeling this is just more policing by media release. I have no doubt that the people involved are totally committed to this, but I don't see the logic in subjecting everybody stopped to an eye test. The police have had the power to conduct roadside tests for as long as I remember: the only difference now is that they can take immediate action to stop the driver continuing. If they test every stopped driver's eyesight, then there won't be as much time for looking for other offences. OTOH, if they are keen to get a result, we may see a lot of older drivers being stopped and tested just because they are older. It's thirty-odd years since I started wearing specs and I've had regular eye tests ever since.

If there is a simple first step here, it would be to require drivers renewing their licence - typically at age 70 and then every three years - to submit the results of an eye test. As it is, you get your original licence solely on the basis of a simple number plate test as part of the driving test. Loads of figures are bandied about but nobody really knows the state of the nation's eyesight. There seem to be trade bodies and individual chains of opticians keen to drum up more trade.

[Vorpal]

People who have photo licences currently have to renew them every 10 years.

[slowster]

I can't help feeling this is just more policing by media release. I have no doubt that the people involved are totally committed to this, but I don't see the logic in subjecting everybody stopped to an eye test. The police have had the power to conduct roadside tests for as long as I remember: the only difference now is that they can take immediate action to stop the driver continuing. If they test every stopped driver's eyesight, then there won't be as much time for looking for other offences. OTOH, if they are keen to get a result, we may see a lot of older drivers being stopped and tested just because they are older.

Both the BBC and Guardian articles state that "data from the tests will be used to improve understanding of the extent of poor driver vision", which suggests that this has been copied from a police press release. It does sound like there is uncertainty about the extent of this problem - and not simply for older drivers - and presumably whoever is responsible for roads policing and safety has decided that this exercise is justified to get some meaningful data.

Every so often there is a report in the press of a fatal accident where the driver's eyesight was found to be inadequate, but we cannot tell from those incidents how significant a factor inadequate eyesight is generally in road safety, because it is only checked where a serious incident has already occurred and/or the police already have a suspicion that the driver has poor eyesight. There may a large number of accidents occurring where poor eyesight is a significant factor but it is not being picked up.

The police cannot (I think) stop drivers without reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed, so they are unable to simply stop a random group of drivers as part of a statistical study. Testing the eyesight of all drivers that they do happen to stop, is presumably the next best thing to a random sample.

[thirdcrank]

People who have photo licences currently have to renew them every 10 years.

My ... er ... oversight. Having kept my paper licence from when they were introduced in the 1970's until the eve of my 70th birthday in 2014, I never had to reapply for almost 40 years. That 10 yearly renewal might be the time to insist on a sight test. I think it's important to put the onus on the the applicant to prove their fitness, rather than on medical professionals to report concerns, the argument being that the latter system may deter people from seeking medical attention.

Slowster

I understand the case you are making and let's agree that the extent of people driving with inadequate eyeseight is unknown. We know there's plenty of SMIDSY and the like, but I suspect most of us believe that's not caused by poor eyesight. Perhaps research is needed. In brief, I'll suggest that any data collected by this initiative will be statistically worthless. At best, it will be a measure of police activity: the number of drivers stopped and tested. There may be some spectacular ( ) cases detected of people behind the wheel who are almost blind and the like but useful information about the extent of such problems across society will not be collected. FWIW, I don't think this is a nationally-led inititiative, but rather some dedicated traffic officers - sergeants and constables - who feel something needs doing - not inlike Operation Close Pass, also launched by WMP traffic officers.

[awavey]

Once again the camp will be split between those who believe that many rules like this should apply to ALL road users, and those that will argue cyclists are a special case that require exemption

Not at all. Motorists are a special case requiring extra rules like this because they are heavier and faster than all other road users.

Someone can see well enough to cycle safely at 30mph without being able to drive safely at 60, obviously.

Agreed.

I’d like to see a retest every five years for motor vehicle drivers with an eye test included. I’d happily take it.

why 5 years, why not 4 or 6, wheres the evidence 5 is anything but just a nice sounding number, and why do you think it will help ? the vast majority unless they are complete idiots will pass and then go back to their bad habits again, its like an MOT a test only proves you were competent at that moment in time, and those that dont pass, how many do you think will not just carry on driving anyway because where are the traffic cops stopping them, we already have an estimated 1million unlicensed drivers on the road, do you want more ?

the driving test isnt the issue, enforcing existing traffic laws is

[The utility cyclist]

A couple of farily high profile road traffic deaths in the last 10 years, involved drivers who had poor vision. IIRC, one of them went on to kill again.

Professional drivers, at the very least should be required to have regular eye tests, and wear corrective lenses, if necessary.

I think that introducing a requirement to submit a certificate (electronic is ok) from an optician for driving licence renewal (every 5 years) for car and motorcycle licences is good. The requirement should be more frequent for drivers who hold licences to operate HGVs, LGVs, and other large vehicles.

IIRC the European Unions' plutocrats reduced the requirement for PSV drivers without glasses compared to the original 1980 UK legislation, this was again modified in 2012 but has seen no significant increase in visual acuity requirement for operators for either non wearers or those with, that in itself is a disgrace and has cost lives

[The utility cyclist]

I can't help feeling this is just more policing by media release. I have no doubt that the people involved are totally committed to this, but I don't see the logic in subjecting everybody stopped to an eye test. The police have had the power to conduct roadside tests for as long as I remember: the only difference now is that they can take immediate action to stop the driver continuing. If they test every stopped driver's eyesight, then there won't be as much time for looking for other offences. OTOH, if they are keen to get a result, we may see a lot of older drivers being stopped and tested just because they are older. It's thirty-odd years since I started wearing specs and I've had regular eye tests ever since.

If there is a simple first step here, it would be to require drivers renewing their licence - typically at age 70 and then every three years - to submit the results of an eye test. As it is, you get your original licence solely on the basis of a simple number plate test as part of the driving test. Loads of figures are bandied about but nobody really knows the state of the nation's eyesight. There seem to be trade bodies and individual chains of opticians keen to drum up more trade.

Which is exactly what I said initially, be pro active not reactive, the number of drivers out there with vision not fit for driving is huge and a basic straight in line test is pathetic in any case, it does not take into account peripheral vision which is massively important if not more so.
However the fact is that older drivers are more susceptible to eyesight deficiencies, I was driven at at excessive speed in a residential 30 zone only yesterday by A WOMAN IN HER 80s clearly not in control nor had seen me, frankly it's frightening that we can allow these people (with poor vision and reactions, never mind poor attitude) behind the wheel of a killing machine!
The sooner we take humans out of motors completely the better, and from that simply making it impossible for all but the invalided to drive in town and city centres, deliveries can be done away from peak times or transferred to much lower endangering vehicle types.

[ANTONISH]

Our Vision Express our very thorough and use all the latest kit. Specsavers locally are awful IME, fobbed me off when I complained at unsuitable prescription. At 76 my eyesight is perfect with glasses although I find it better to lose them when driving at night. I strongly agree with the Police action because I know folk who drive with seriously bad vision.

Al

My driving licence requires me to wear glasses. My eyesight is good enough to pass the eye test but I'm slightly short sighted and prefer the extra clarity with glasses - hence I took the driving test wearing them.
I don't know if you have your licence on a similar basis but "losing the glasses" for me would be an offence and would invalidate my insurance.

[mjr]

My driving licence requires me to wear glasses. My eyesight is good enough to pass the eye test but I'm slightly short sighted and prefer the extra clarity with glasses - hence I took the driving test wearing them.
I don't know if you have your licence on a similar basis but "losing the glasses" for me would be an offence and would invalidate my insurance.

How can I tell? Is it on the licence somewhere? I think I was strictly speaking legal without when I passed but I did have glasses by then, although I didn't wear them as much as now. I can't remember those years well, thanks to medications discussed in other posts.

[Bmblbzzz]

People who have photo licences currently have to renew them every 10 years.

Yes, but it's just to update photo and address, there's no eyesight or other medical test.

[[XAP]Bob]

Not at all. Motorists are a special case requiring extra rules like this because they are heavier and faster than all other road users.

Someone can see well enough to cycle safely at 30mph without being able to drive safely at 60, obviously.

Agreed.

I’d like to see a retest every five years for motor vehicle drivers with an eye test included. I’d happily take it.

why 5 years, why not 4 or 6, wheres the evidence 5 is anything but just a nice sounding number, and why do you think it will help ? the vast majority unless they are complete idiots will pass and then go back to their bad habits again, its like an MOT a test only proves you were competent at that moment in time, and those that dont pass, how many do you think will not just carry on driving anyway because where are the traffic cops stopping them, we already have an estimated 1million unlicensed drivers on the road, do you want more ?

the driving test isnt the issue, enforcing existing traffic laws is

Because 5 years is better than never.

Actually having regular tests of something as fundamentally dangerous as driving a motor vehicle is a good idea. Yes it's only a snapshot, but it would actually remind people, on a regular basis, what behaviour is expected...

[thirdcrank]

I have sufficient faith in human nature to believe that most people are responsible about this. However, I think that some eye conditions develop gradually so that they are imperceptible to the person concerned. Regular mandatory tests would overcome that, to some extent. As I've already said, putting the onus on the individual to prove their eyesight is up to standard by way of an optician's report would avoid any problems of patient confidentiality. All more work for opticians for which somebody has to pay. Nobody really knows the extent of the problem and a bit more police testing won't provide sound data for a policy decision.

None of this tackles people who do things like not bothering to wear specs which have been prescribed.

[Tangled Metal]

It's a good idea to go for eye tests at regular intervals because opticians are able to spot serious medical conditions before it gets picked up by GPs. The question is whether people would be honest enough to accept that their eyesight isn't good enough and take action. Let's face it not many get caught out and get their licences revoked on eye sight grounds.

Medical personnel don't seem to feel it incumbent on them to report people medically unfit to drive. So you're unlikely to get commercially minded opticians reporting their customers. People aren't inclined to hand back licences when they find out they're medically unfit neither.

If it's an issue it's really just another case of people acting in their own self interests and not for the good of all. Would you honestly know you're unfit to drive and would you act on that knowledge?

There was a entertainment programme on TV where they got experienced driving test examiners / instructors to go out with elderly drivers to assess them for fitness to drive. The majority passed the test but it off the minority that failed, a rare few took the opinion of the expert and stopped driving. A few argued and came up with excuses for why it wasn't a fair test, the test was rigged against them, etc. It must be noted that in a programme that self selected those who are considered unsafe due to age related issues it was still a minority found unsuited to driving. However among that minority the resistance to giving up driving was high.

It's the mentality of selfishness. Most people know when they're not safe to drive for whatever reason. Whether that's eyesight, reaction speed, alcohol or tiredness. I know when I'm tired and admit I push on a bit further than I should. However I do stop or hand the keys to my partner. I push the boundaries a little then stop driving. Others don't stop and that's part of the mentality of car use IMHO.