Potential New Driving Laws

[Mandofred]

Renew your driving licence

Apply online to renew your 10-year driving licence, full or provisional - cost, payment methods, documents and information you need

www.gov.uk

It’s all very simple and managed my last one in 10 mins

What time is wasted , do you really think there should be qualified opticians sat in a DVLA office ?

Nope...you don't need qualified opticians sat in a DVLA office. You just need someone who doesn't drool on themselves to have a person put their bloody head against a simple machine to see if they can read the letters on a screen. They were doing this in the US a bazillion years ago. Do you have something against making things simple and easy? One site....one job....make it quick and simple. 10 minutes? I need more details. 10 minutes....include time going to Boots...or your grandma's....whatever.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Nope...you don't need qualified opticians sat in a DVLA office. You just need someone who doesn't drool on themselves to have a person put their bloody head against a simple machine to see if they can read the letters on a screen. They were doing this in the US a bazillion years ago. Do you have something against making things simple and easy? One site....one job....make it quick and simple. 10 minutes? I need more details. 10 minutes....include time going to Boots...or your grandma's....whatever.

It was very simple to renew my driving license

And someone non qualified doing eye tests to say if someone is acceptable to drive ?!

No thanks , not a chance that happens

It’s all simple , you go to the website and follow their instructions

Any issues pop to the post office who can help you

 

[Mandofred]

It was very simple to renew my driving license

And someone non qualified doing eye tests to say if someone is acceptable to drive ?!

No thanks , not a chance that happens

It’s all simple , you go to the website and follow their instructions

Any issues pop to the post office who can help you

Again....multiple trips. The failing of the British empire.

It's a bloody eye test to check if you aren't blind as a bat. Even I could do that.

 

[clubchamp98]

It was very simple to renew my driving license

And someone non qualified doing eye tests to say if someone is acceptable to drive ?!

No thanks , not a chance that happens

It’s all simple , you go to the website and follow their instructions

Any issues pop to the post office who can help you

Isn’t that what the test examiner does ?
“ can you read a licence number from 20/30 yds.
He’s not an optician !

 

[Imurg]

Isn’t that what the test examiner does ?
“ can you read a licence number from 20/30 yds.
He’s not an optician !

It's a very crude eyesight test.....20 metres isn't a long way

 

[Mandofred]

A simple test putting your head against a machine....can you read the letters or not? It's not hard. Kind of what the "super duper eye test" folks do. This isn't a test to see if your vision if perfect. This is a test to make sure you can see to drive a car.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Again....multiple trips. The failing of the British empire.

It's a bloody eye test to check if you aren't blind as a bat. Even I could do that.

There used to be places where you could get loads of official things done. They were called Post Offices.
If they were still like they used to be, adding an eye-test for a driving licence would be a small thing.

 

[Mandofred]

There used to be places where you could get loads of official things done. They were called Post Offices.
If they were still like they used to be, adding an eye-test for a driving licence would be a small thing.

When I went for my last trip to Leeds to finish my VISA requirements.....you know, before you could just come to the UK and not meet any requirements.....I went to a post office near the bus station and they did all this. But then....the world changed.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

A simple test putting your head against a machine....can you read the letters or not? It's not hard. Kind of what the "super duper eye test" folks do. This isn't a test to see if your vision if perfect. This is a test to make sure you can see to drive a car.

It’s very much not what the “super duper eye test” does

 

[Mandofred]

It’s very much not what the “super duper eye test” does

You don't need a full eye test. You just need to check if someone can see things reasonably. Is the "eye test" checking for possible eye issues?....or to see if they can SEE NOW??? Your answer......

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Need a full eye test without the x Ray

The good news is the country has thousands of establishments that can carry them out and even better for a lot of people they are all free

 

[Mandofred]

Need a full eye test without the x Ray

The good news is the country has thousands of establishments that can carry them out and even better for a lot of people they are all free

What is the purpose for taking an eye test for driving? Am I in the minority.....to check if you can see well enough to drive? Not to check if I have cancer ...... or leprosy? Just a simple eye test.

 

[D-S]

What is the current eye test for new drivers and who administers it?

 

[Billysboots]

Yes , but every 5 years from 50 is an overreaction and would have little support.

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.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yes , but every 5 years from 50 is an overreaction and would have little support.

Why little support? The only folks affaceted would be those whose eyesight wasn't up to scratch - and they shouldn't be driving if it isn't. If your eyesight is fine then no big deal to have it checked. And if it isn't then glasses or CLs - or change existing prescription.

 

[Imurg]

What is the current eye test for new drivers and who administers it?

At test time all they have to do is read a number plate from 20 metres

 

[Mandofred]

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.

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

 

[Mandofred]

At test time all they have to do is read a number plate from 20 metres

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.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Simple solution, anyone caught driving and not being able to read a number plate from 20 metres loses their licence. At the moment you don't lose your licence because you drink beer or take drugs, only if do and then drive

 

[Mandofred]

Simple solution, anyone caught driving and not being able to read a number plate from 20 metres loses their licence. At the moment you don't lose your licence because you drink beer or take drugs, only if do and then driveU

Unfortunately....not that simple. If they are caught and not able to read a 20 meter plate....they likely are there because they have been caught doing a naughty thing. The idea is to PREVENT a naughty thing from happening.....like running into a person because they can't see worth poop.