Cycling UK Forum

Have just read the cycleclips email and then went on to read the annex regarding the proposal (Scroll down to page 6 to see them) http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/consultations.aspx It appears that this proposal is going to have a serious impact on cyclists and pedstrians (not to mention other motor vehicles)

This just seems total madness, why on earth does anyone see that reducing the standards will not cause a problem? Not only that but the document says there will be no data collation for further review. So if accidents increase due to this there would be no evidence collected to prove that the law passed was at fault!
However according to the document: "Four of the current vision standards will be relaxed, allowing more people to obtain driving licenses without
adversely affecting road safety. We have estimated that between 336 and 672 people may benefit from the
social, domestic and economic benefits that driving brings. Where the UK standard is being raised to meet
EU requirements, we would expect some marginal benefit to road safety"

Well that's just fine and dandy for those couple of hundred but no mention of how they think this doesn't impact on safety?

Relaxing the current UK standards:
Proposal 1
Groups 1 & 2 drivers – The Directive proposes a reduction to visual acuity levels which we are
content to adopt. In practice it will mean that the distance we use to read a number plate (in the
driving test) will be reduced to meet the new visual acuity level. Currently, a registration mark
containing letters and number is read from a distance of 20 metres for number plate formats
post 1.9.2001 (20.5 metres for number plate formats pre 1.9.2001).

We propose that the distance a registration mark containing letters and numbers is read is
reduced to17.5 metres We also propose to test against the new style number plates (post
1.9.2001) only since the vast majority of number plates are now the new style format. This
means that there will be just one distance. Regulations will be amended to make this clear.

Proposal 2
Group 1 (cars and motorcycles) - Currently, UK standards require existing drivers or new
applicants who have total functional loss of vision in one eye or who use only one eye (e.g. in
the case of diplopia) to have a visual acuity of at least decimal 0.6, with corrective lenses if
necessary.

We propose to relax the standard so that the driver or applicant will need a visual acuity of at
least decimal 0.5, with corrective lenses if necessary (which therefore aligns with the directive).
This will be tested by reading the number plate test (part of the driving test).

Proposal 3
Group 2 (buses and lorries) - Currently, UK standards require drivers or applicants who have
vision in both eyes to have a visual acuity of decimal 0.5 in the worse eye and reach an
uncorrected acuity of Snellen 3/60. We propose to relax the standard so that drivers or
applicants who have vision in both eyes can have a reduced acuity in the worse eye of decimal
0.1 but must not require glasses with a lens power exceeding plus eight dioptres (which aligns
with the directive).

Vision experts believe that it would be rare for someone with an uncorrected acuity of Snellen
3/60 to require corrective lenses exceeding plus eight dioptres but not impossible. However, no
figures are available.

Proposal 4
Group 2 (buses and lorries)– Currently, UK standards require drivers or applicants who suffer a
substantial loss of vision in one eye have to meet the minimum acuity of decimal 0.8 in the
better eye and decimal 0.5 in the worse eye to retain their licence. We propose to relax that
standard so that after a “substantial loss” of vision in one eye, there should be an appropriate
adaptation period during which the driver or applicant is not allowed to drive, driving is only
allowed after a favourable opinion from vision and driving experts providing they reach a
minimum acuity of decimal 0.8 in the better eye and decimal 0.1 in the worse eye (which aligns
with the directive).

I always thought most motorists were blind anyway (or at least observing the roads through two forward facing straws...)

This change of the law fits in rather well with my age related deterioration of eyesight.
So by the time I have to renew my licence at 70 the standards will have come down enough that my being blind (by then) will not be used to discriminate against me.

So SMIDSY will now be a legitimate excuse?
I have slight short sight-but I can just read a numberplate at the specified distance. I don't feel that this is good enough particularly at night. I took the test wearing glasses and always wear them to drive. I have declared this on my recent application for my 70+ licence renewal.
There seems to be a presumption of a right to drive regardless of the danger one may present to the more vulnerable.

To be fair the ability to read a number plate at 20m isn't strictly necessary...

When I was 17 (way back when) my eyesight wasn't perfect, but I was purely astigmatic (i.e. neither short nor long sighted, just rugby ball shaped eyeballs)...

I couldn't reliably read a numberplate at anything further than a couple of metres, but my visual resolution over 20m was about the same (i.e. I could see the shape of the letters, just not quite resolve them). I was perfectly capable of seeing other road users (even a midget unicyclist), even if I couldn't read the logos on their shirts.

I managed to guess the numberplate on my test, and took my test without glasses, then chose to wear them at all times (but wasn't obliged to do so).

OTOH changing the law to allow an extra 500 people to drive seems a colossal waste of time. There will always be 500 more people who could drive if we relaxed the rules a bit - we have to have the line drawn somewhere ...

if they relax the laws about having tax discs, insurance, tyres with tread on and MOTs, then millions of low income families could enjoy the joys of motoring, and millions more who currently drive would stop being criminalised for being poor.

I'm guessing from the numbers they quote the extra people are coming from groups 2-4 - it would be very low percentages out of 30million drivers Whilst we do hear of cases involving near-blind drivers (who would fail the diluted Proposal 1 anyway), the vast majority of SMIDSYs are IMO didn't look/see/think, not couldn't see.
When I took my test as a 17yr old, the examiner asked me to read the number plate of the blue car. I did so, thinking that it was at least 75ft away. Awkward pause from the examiner, who then indicated he meant a different blue car that was barely 40ft away.

[quote="[XAP]Bob"]To be fair the ability to read a number plate at 20m isn't strictly necessary...

IMO it's insufficient. It doesn't test for peripheral vision. (I suppose it is left to the examiner to detect excessive head movement). It may be sufficient in daylight but at night the amount of visual information is greatly reduced. From my experience daylight driving without glasses is possible but I wouldn't want to risk it at night.

The first time I went ofr my driving test I failed the number plate reading part and hence the entire. I have always had to wear glasses being short sighted from birth and suffering from nystagmus as well. I had my eyes checked by a consultant opthalmologist who carried out the full range of tests and pronounced my eyesight was just within the required standard. This wasn't accepted by DVLA and they insisted that I had to succesfully repeat the numberplate test in order to keep my provisional licence. I have never understood why reading a numberplate is a sufficient eyesight test and accepted over a proper eyesight test.

WaterLab Rat wrote:The first time I went ofr my driving test I failed the number plate reading part and hence the entire. I have always had to wear glasses being short sighted from birth and suffering from nystagmus as well. I had my eyes checked by a consultant opthalmologist who carried out the full range of tests and pronounced my eyesight was just within the required standard. This wasn't accepted by DVLA and they insisted that I had to succesfully repeat the numberplate test in order to keep my provisional licence. I have never understood why reading a numberplate is a sufficient eyesight test and accepted over a proper eyesight test.

Because if you can't even read a license plate at just a measly 20.5 metres then how are you able to read road signs at distance (So you know what potential hazards may lay ahead) whilst moving around in a vehicle with other things to think about ? Frankly it isn't difficult enough of a test and peripheral vision should be tested (amongst a whole host of non eye related areas) also IMO.

Hi there, It may surprise people to learn that the sight test for gaining work as a School Crossing Patrol (Lollipop) is far tougher than that for driving even a HGV? Daltonism, Night Vision, Periferal Vision are all tested, so don't let people try to tell you that they would employ Mr Magoo, they're wrong! The standard of testing for using a motor vehicle on the road is lower now than in 1935! TTFN MM

Tonyf33 wrote:Because if you can't even read a license plate at just a measly 20.5 metres then how are you able to read road signs at distance (So you know what potential hazards may lay ahead) whilst moving around in a vehicle with other things to think about ? Frankly it isn't difficult enough of a test and peripheral vision should be tested (amongst a whole host of non eye related areas) also IMO.

Bit of a presumption there in assuming that people actually take note of road signs.
I genuinely believe most people don't, follow any car and see if its behaviour changes when a warning sign appears. Invariably it doesn't - even for hidden entrance type signs where you'd expect common sense to tell you to slow down...

kwackers wrote:

Tonyf33 wrote:Because if you can't even read a license plate at just a measly 20.5 metres then how are you able to read road signs at distance (So you know what potential hazards may lay ahead) whilst moving around in a vehicle with other things to think about ? Frankly it isn't difficult enough of a test and peripheral vision should be tested (amongst a whole host of non eye related areas) also IMO.

Bit of a presumption there in assuming that people actually take note of road signs.
I genuinely believe most people don't, follow any car and see if its behaviour changes when a warning sign appears. Invariably it doesn't - even for hidden entrance type signs where you'd expect common sense to tell you to slow down...

But surely having the ability to actually see the sign in time to register it has to be a basic minmum no?
There are a whole host of 'other' improvements that could be done but won't to make accquiring a driving license harder. Certainly in Germany you have to have an eye test done before you can get a license.

Tonyf33 wrote:

kwackers wrote:Bit of a presumption there in assuming that people actually take note of road signs.
I genuinely believe most people don't, follow any car and see if its behaviour changes when a warning sign appears. Invariably it doesn't - even for hidden entrance type signs where you'd expect common sense to tell you to slow down...

But surely having the ability to actually see the sign in time to register it has to be a basic minmum no?
There are a whole host of 'other' improvements that could be done but won't to make accquiring a driving license harder. Certainly in Germany you have to have an eye test done before you can get a license.

Indeed, I was just being facetious.