Cycling Eyesight Standards

[Gee]

My gut instinct is to tell him to get out and enjoy himself.

Realistically how fast is he going to go? What kind of vision do you need for that?

Life’s got to have a bit of quality and a few things you enjoy in.

[Carlton green]

My gut instinct is to tell him to get out and enjoy himself.

Realistically how fast is he going to go? What kind of vision do you need for that?

Life’s got to have a bit of quality and a few things you enjoy in.

^^^ Agreed. The important points covered and clearly made.

[Cugel]

When I went for my motorbike test on the Monday I'd been in a fight on the Saturday had my glasses broken and stiches under my eye. So I took a gamble and memorised the number plate on a red mini 25 yards away. It worked out fine ,i even managed not to run him over when he did the stepping out in front of you for the emergency stop.

However the bike burst into flames on the way home, which wasn't the end of the world as it wasn't mine

Isn't the answer to this issue that the fellow with the poor eyesight should make a morally-informed judgement upon himself concerning his ability to ride a bicycle safely in the manner and environments he might like to ride in? Most of the answers in this thread seem to be of the nitpicking kind that examine various rules, especially the fine print, looking for loopy holes through which to squirm in order to do what we want to do and never mind the practicalities of doing it safely.

A culture in which the only consideration of doing something iffy is whether we'll get punished for it or not is a poor thing. All about rights and not a whiff of consideration about duties to others in supporting their rights (not to be run into by a cyclist who will call SMIDSY, for example).

Humans - we're such a self-serving lot, eh? "His gut instinct, your worship, was to get out and enjoy himself = and FU to the rest of us, especially the child he didn't see and so ran over".

Cugel

[gbnz]

himself ..... himself ........ he

Do you not have any female cyclists locally? I suppose sexism presents itself, in an individuals inability to recognise that a woman, or whatever may also cycle a bicycle

[thirdcrank]

When I went for my motorbike test on the Monday I'd been in a fight on the Saturday had my glasses broken and stiches under my eye. So I took a gamble and memorised the number plate on a red mini 25 yards away. It worked out fine ,i even managed not to run him over when he did the stepping out in front of you for the emergency stop.

However the bike burst into flames on the way home, which wasn't the end of the world as it wasn't mine

:-)

Isn't the answer to this issue that the fellow with the poor eyesight should make a morally-informed judgement upon himself concerning his ability to ride a bicycle safely in the manner and environments he might like to ride in? Most of the answers in this thread seem to be of the nitpicking kind that examine various rules, especially the fine print, looking for loopy holes through which to squirm in order to do what we want to do and never mind the practicalities of doing it safely.

A culture in which the only consideration of doing something iffy is whether we'll get punished for it or not is a poor thing. All about rights and not a whiff of consideration about duties to others in supporting their rights (not to be run into by a cyclist who will call SMIDSY, for example).

Humans - we're such a self-serving lot, eh? "His gut instinct, your worship, was to get out and enjoy himself = and FU to the rest of us, especially the child he didn't see and so ran over".

Cugel

AFAIK, there is no specific standard defined for a cyclist's eyesight and ipso facto, that of the rider of a street-legal ebike, although several posters have sought to contrive secondary restrictions. Perhaps there's an assumption that the would-be rider has lost his marbles and so cannot be relied on to make a dependable judgment. If so, then I believe there are safeguards to protect those with dementia from endangering themselves and others. Otherwise, if this person has not "lost it" then my advice would be to neb out.

[Cugel]

himself ..... himself ........ he

Do you not have any female cyclists locally? I suppose sexism presents itself, in an individuals inability to recognise that a woman, or whatever may also cycle a bicycle

I thought the subject of this post was a male person. If it's a female person I'll happily revise the gender-words, just to keep you (and any other person) spoiling for a wordy handbag-fight. Come on if you think you're bard enough!

Cugel

[gbnz]

No, it is simply interesting viewing innate sexism coming out. Suppose many view cyclists as men, footballers as men, roadworkers as men and thus referring to he, or him, rather than the cyclist is an innate approach. Suppose the hairdresser or nurse can't be a he or him

[Vorpal]

I think that there is considerable difference between having vision too poor to drive, and vision too poor to cycle.

I obviously don't know how bad the eyesight of Barrowman's friend is, but I certainly can cycle without corrective lenses, where it would be neither safe not legal for me to drive without them.

I have, in fact, on two occasions ridden my bike to the opticians with my glasses in a bag, as I was taking them to be repaired.

I can see well enough ahead that at the speed & stopping distance of a pedal cycle (even an electric one), it's not a problem; at the speed and stopping distance of a motor vehicle is another matter.

[Vorpal]

himself ..... himself ........ he

Do you not have any female cyclists locally? I suppose sexism presents itself, in an individuals inability to recognise that a woman, or whatever may also cycle a bicycle

I thought the subject of this post was a male person. If it's a female person I'll happily revise the gender-words, just to keep you (and any other person) spoiling for a wordy handbag-fight. Come on if you think you're bard enough!

Cugel

Barrowman used they / them pronouns.

[Nearholmer]

I think that there is considerable difference between having vision too poor to drive, and vision too poor to cycle.

There are so many ifs, buts and maybes, particular circumstances etc to consider that IMO it’s impossible to give a general answer.

There’s the question of the nature of the sight impairment, which could be of multiple forms: lack of acuity; restricted visual field; “fogging”; floating specks; etc. There’s the extent/severity of the same. There’s the environment, which might vary from a barely-used off-road path to one of those maelstrom, multi-lane, double or treble roundabouts. And probably other things I haven’t thought of.

The only good answer is, as someone else said, for the individual to think hard about risk to self and others, then decide whether, where, and how to cycle. An ideal start might be to find a smooth, fairly wide, barely-used path, and go slowly along that to get a feel for the process, then build-up carefully.

Personally, I wouldn’t cycle without my specs, because although I could see big things like people, cars, significant trees etc, I’d doubt my ability to pick out smaller things like potholes, bricks, obscure bollards, slow moving wire-haired terriers etc in time to steer round them, even going pretty slowly, so I’d be on the deck pretty swiftly!

[Cugel]

Do you not have any female cyclists locally? I suppose sexism presents itself, in an individuals inability to recognise that a woman, or whatever may also cycle a bicycle

I thought the subject of this post was a male person. If it's a female person I'll happily revise the gender-words, just to keep you (and any other person) spoiling for a wordy handbag-fight. Come on if you think you're bard enough!

Cugel

Barrowman used they / them pronouns.

So he did. I will smack myself on the wrist very firmly, especially to please gbnz since they believes me a sexist pig in need of extensive correction.

It is easy to use the habitual gendered pronouns, which may or may not indicate "innate sexism". Should Ms Nz care to examine any number of my previous posts, they will discover sporadic attempts to use "she" and "her" rather than the male equivalents in discussions where the gender is really irrelevant.

Use of "they" et al - another habit forbidden by a particularly savage English master (yes, he was not a nice mistress but a master, inclusive of cane and a gimlet eye indicating his inclination to use it). I haven't got over it yet! And you must admit, using "they" can make a clumsy syntax (see above).

Cugel, accepting your verbal slap.

[jois]

No, it is simply interesting viewing innate sexism coming out. Suppose many view cyclists as men, footballers as men, roadworkers as men and thus referring to he, or him, rather than the cyclist is an innate approach. Suppose the hairdresser or nurse can't be a he or him

I'm not sure to be honest, certainly there are people telling us such. I don't think there is anything inherently sexist about identifying someone's gender if you know what gender they happen to be. If for some reason your not sure it's best to avoid as it can cause offence.. I certainly don't get upset if someone takes my appearance of being bald with a beard and makes a stab in the dark that I'm a bloke, though I would be a little suprised rather than insulted if they called me Miss

Stereotypes in occupations/past times is different. I was pick up on doing that when I was lecturing at Liverpool council in the 1990s and stopped it. In my defence it was more habit of phrase than sexism and female road workers were something of a rarity.

But just assuming that only certain types of person can or want to do certain thing is possibly limiting to which ever gender you are not including. Though I reserve my right if friend tells me they are marrying a nurse to take a guess at the gender based on what I know of the friend

[thirdcrank]

IMO, if there's been stereoptyping on this thread it's the assumption that somebody whose eyesight is failing must have dementia.

[mattheus]

But I suppose a rigorous risk assessment ( quiet roads, no rush hour ) may enable the gent to maintain some independence against the odds. And contribute to their own mental wellbeing.

[Carlton green]

Thanks for the input , it just seems wrong to me . I don't know exactly how bad the eyesight is but I understand there have been operations and the DVLA have revoked the licence.

But I suppose a rigorous risk assessment ( quiet roads, no rush hour ) may enable the gent to maintain some independence against the odds. And contribute to their own mental wellbeing.

The DVLA’s removal of a licence to drive a fast moving vehicle of considerable mass shouldn’t be used to interpolate their suitability to ride a bike: the two don’t have sufficient common ground.

Risk assessment and risk mitigation is appropriate to us all, let the gent concerned get on with doing such and sympathetically support him in the process. If he can ride at all then encourage him to and support him in doing so, of course encourage responsible riding too - just as we do of any rider.

Much earlier in the thread I mentioned a chap local to me who gets about very nicely on his e-bike despite poor vision which took his driving licence away … if you want a guide then be guided by such examples of what can be done by a sensible person.