Potential New Driving Laws

[Imurg]

And it's quick and simple. Unless of course the person has done a Jason Bourne and memorized every license plate in the parking lot.

20 years ago I took a lad to his test..he came out of the house without his usual specs.
Got contacts? I said
No ..I sat on them.....
Right..quick eye test and we got to about 15 m before he could pass it..
I didn't think they'd take him out but we went along ...
The Examiner kept edging him forwards until I thought that it..
Then they got in the car..off they went, back they came and he passed....
As the Examiner got out of the car he mumbled..Might be an idea to get your eyes checked.

 

[Billysboots]

yep...not hard to agree with pretty well all of this. So....why isn't there a coherent plan to deal with this?

I’m guessing cost.

But that needs balancing out against the cost of every single fatal collision. When you factor in police time, both at scene and investigation, ambulance and fire service, hospital, legal and judicial system involvement, HM Coroner’s cost, the cost of road closures to the economy, especially protracted motorway closures, and everything else I’ve doubtless forgotten, the overall cost is absolutely eye watering. I believe the best part of twenty years ago the estimate was £1m per incident. Yes, really. So I shudder to think what the cost would be now.

 

[KenL]

My eye sight has got progressively worse since 40 , know plenty of people who have had to start wearing glasses in their 50’s

Is that distance or reading?

 

[KenL]

No thanks. I pay enough already, no need to add a pointless check that costs me another 35

In the US you look into an instrument and look at something to test your eyesight. Cannot remember what you looked at as it was 1996 when I got my US licence.

I would prefer a full test for everyone every 10 years or so.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Is that distance or reading?

Distance

 

[Mandofred]

In the US you look into an instrument and look at something to test your eyesight. Cannot remember what you looked at as it was 1996 when I got my US licence.

I would prefer a full test for everyone every 10 years or so.

In the US it is just a generic device you look into with the letters arranged at different sizes....kind of like a test with the eye folks here. It's pretty simple, but they are just checking to see if you can see worth a damn. They aren't doing a complete eye test checking for cataracts, glaucoma, etc etc. That's a full eye test....for eye health. If you want a full eye exam....go to a specialist. If you want a driving test....you don't go to the formula 1 site and see if you can go around corners at 200mph.....you go to see if you can drive decently. People are over thinking the eye test.

 

[Mandofred]

The latest government figures, external show a quarter of fatalities from road collisions involve at least one young driver.

They also suggest that male drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than any other age group, apart from those aged 86 or older.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The latest government figures, external show a quarter of fatalities from road collisions involve at least one young driver.

They also suggest that male drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than any other age group, apart from those aged 86 or older.

Which is not a surprising stat as most of them are new drivers

 

[Hobbit]

The latest government figures, external show a quarter of fatalities from road collisions involve at least one young driver.

They also suggest that male drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 are more likely to be killed or seriously injured than any other age group, apart from those aged 86 or older.

But where in the doc does it say because of failing eyesight? Eye tests won’t reduce the number of accidents amongst the young, though it might with those that are older.

Isn’t there a danger that we’re conflating reasons to argue for or against a particular initiative? Shouldn’t we be looking for reasons to reduce all accidents in all age groups?

 

[Mandofred]

But where in the doc does it say because of failing eyesight? Eye tests won’t reduce the number of accidents amongst the young, though it might with those that are older.

Isn’t there a danger that we’re conflating reasons to argue for or against a particular initiative? Shouldn’t we be looking for reasons to reduce all accidents in all age groups?

Yep....but ignoring the biggest culprit. The young....and the really old. Insurance rates for the young tell a story all by themselves. I'm having my eyes hopefully repaired....doing my part as they say.

 

[clubchamp98]

I’m guessing cost.

But that needs balancing out against the cost of every single fatal collision. When you factor in police time, both at scene and investigation, ambulance and fire service, hospital, legal and judicial system involvement, HM Coroner’s cost, the cost of road closures to the economy, especially protracted motorway closures, and everything else I’ve doubtless forgotten, the overall cost is absolutely eye watering. I believe the best part of twenty years ago the estimate was £1m per incident. Yes, really. So I shudder to think what the cost would be now.

We the motorist pay enough tax to sort this out no problem.
But like a lot of things the tax the motorist pays isn’t used for the roads.!

 

[clubchamp98]

In the US you look into an instrument and look at something to test your eyesight. Cannot remember what you looked at as it was 1996 when I got my US licence.

I would prefer a full test for everyone every 10 years or so.

Lighthouse ?

 

[Swango1980]

Just come onto this thread now, so not read all posts.

But, we pay every year for a car MOT. Perhaps we should also be responsible to pay for a driver MOT as well? Not sure what it would involve, but an eye check would be the minimum.

I'd be happy with it anyway. Would be interesting to know how many tragic accidents it might save. It also saves families the awkwardness and difficulty of trying to stop reluctant family members driving. My gran was worried for years about my grandad driving, and ended up praying that when his car broke down, it couldn't get fixed just to keep him off the road

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Interesting stance.

Was the introduction of seat belt legislation an over reaction? Drink and drug driving? The requirement for an annual MOT?

ANY strategy intended to reduce death and serious injury on the road should be applauded, not questioned. And when it is entirely possible for someone in their early 20’s to cause the death of another on the road with the only factor being their appalling eyesight (I know, I dealt with such a case), then I find it absolutely staggering that anyone would suggest a mandatory test every five years for drivers over the age of 50 is an overreaction which would have little support.

It would have the overwhelming support of anyone and everyone who has either lost a loved one to a driver with defective eyesight, has an interest in promoting road safety, or has been unlucky enough to mop up the mess caused by drivers who, in some cases, quite literally cannot see their hand in front of their face.

The move to test everyone over the age of 70 is a step in the right direction, but does not go anywhere near far enough. A five yearly simple eye test, funded in part by the driver and in part by the state, should be a requirement for every driver, never mind those over 70.

It’s an indisputable fact that the vast majority of drivers in this country take zero responsibility for improving their skills once they have passed their driving test. And it’s also hard to argue against the suggestion that we do not teach people to drive in this country, but to pass their test. So to expect drivers to advise the DVLA that they have dodgy eyesight, regardless of age, has always been laughable.

Is it interesting? Is there evidence to suggest the 50 to 59 age group has an issue and with sight related driving incidents? If you were to do a nationwide poll of this age group id happily bet you'd get less for it than agree.

 

[Crazyface]

Annual eye tests are free here in Scotland. And even if you have to pay to ensure you keep your licence, as long as the eye tests aren't increased deliberately to make money, I don't see an issue.

And there it is...........

 

[Hobbit]

Think I’ve mentioned it in a previous thread…

Old Harry our neighbour way back was pushing 90 years old and still driving. We knew his eyesight was bad, and I did ask him how he managed to drive. His reply was frightening. “When I’m at a junction I count 6 cars then pull out.”

Never saw a dent in his car but who knows what chaos he caused.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Is it interesting? Is there evidence to suggest the 50 to 59 age group has an issue and with sight related driving incidents? If you were to do a nationwide poll of this age group id happily bet you'd get less for it than agree.

Of course people will disagree with because it involves a change and a change that could affect them

If your eyesight isn’t a problem then there will be no issues

If your eyesight is an issue then you can get something sorted to ensure you are no longer a danger

So what exactly would be the problem

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Of course people will disagree with because it involves a change and a change that could affect them

If your eyesight isn’t a problem then there will be no issues

If your eyesight is an issue then you can get something sorted to ensure you are no longer a danger

So what exactly would be the problem

This would be a tick box exercise, will the plod have mobile sight test kit to make sure you're not over the limit as it were ? From retirement age onwards, fine, from 50? Waste of time and money.
Even then it's still going to rely on self policing, so no real change.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

This would be a tick box exercise, will the plod have mobile sight test kit to make sure you're not over the limit as it were ? From retirement age onwards, fine, from 50? Waste of time and money.
Even then it's still going to rely on self policing, so no real change.

So no real issue then beyond standard I don’t want to see something change even if it helps people out

 

[Deleted member 35927]

So no real issue then beyond standard I don’t want to see something change even if it helps people out

How is it helping , what does it achieve? Have you got data to suggest it's worthwhile? Why 5 years, opticians recommend every 2, that's when I get mine checked. From 50 is tick box nonsense.