Potential New Driving Laws

[Hobbit]

Eyesight starts to deteriorate from 40 onwards, presbyopia. In the vast majority of cases it only affects things like reading but it can affect long distance sight too, though rarely.

I didn’t need glasses for reading till I was 45, but 20+ years later I’m on my 4th different prescription strength. Long distance is starting to decline, i.e. I’m inclined to say things like “is that Joe Bloggs over there…” That doesn’t mean I need glasses to drive, yet.

I’d like to think everyone would be proactive about their eye health. But if there’s enough evidence it needs considering…

A question; have 20+ European countries got it wrong by legislating that eye tests are mandatory for a driving licence?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

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.

There is every chance that some people over the age of 50 have eyesight that’s deteriorated enough to impact their driver

So every single one of those people that finds an issue with their eyesight can correct it and reduce any danger on the road

Nice and simple

You can’t really come up with a reason not to do tbh beyond standard moaning about change

It’s not a hardship

 

[RichA]

Anecdote alert...
My dad was driving until he had a non-driving related episode at age 90.
Having been in a car with him every week for years, I saw a deterioration in his driving but it was nothing to do with eyesight and more to do his ability to react quickly to the erratic driving of others. He himself wouldn't have caused an accident but he was in constant danger of being a victim of somebody else's vehicular aggression or risk taking; things that most of us would have anticipated and mitigated.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Eyesight starts to deteriorate from 40 onwards, presbyopia. In the vast majority of cases it only affects things like reading but it can affect long distance sight too, though rarely.

I didn’t need glasses for reading till I was 45, but 20+ years later I’m on my 4th different prescription strength. Long distance is starting to decline, i.e. I’m inclined to say things like “is that Joe Bloggs over there…” That doesn’t mean I need glasses to drive, yet.

I’d like to think everyone would be proactive about their eye health. But if there’s enough evidence it needs considering…

A question; have 20+ European countries got it wrong by legislating that eye tests are mandatory for a driving licence?

yes the EU has a minimum standard, but implementation varies between member states.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

There is every chance that some people over the age of 50 have eyesight that’s deteriorated enough to impact their driver

So every single one of those people that finds an issue with their eyesight can correct it and reduce any danger on the road

Nice and simple

You can’t really come up with a reason not to do tbh beyond standard moaning about change

It’s not a hardship

You're not offering a good reason to do it beyond some wooly platitudes

its a poorly thought out idea and if you can't see the many issues with it then thats on you.

 

[Hobbit]

Anecdote alert...
My dad was driving until he had a non-driving related episode at age 90.
Having been in a car with him every week for years, I saw a deterioration in his driving but it was nothing to do with eyesight and more to do his ability to react quickly to the erratic driving of others. He himself wouldn't have caused an accident but he was in constant danger of being a victim of somebody else's vehicular aggression or risk taking; things that most of us would have anticipated and mitigated.

Though pop didn’t get to 90, 77, his story pretty much mirrors the above. Being a field service engineer till his mid 40’s he put the miles in, and I’d say he was a very competent driver. By his mid 70’s he made me nervous. He did have a couple of bumps in his latter years, mainly simple stuff like misjudging where the gate post was.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You're not offering a good reason to do it beyond some wooly platitudes

its a poorly thought out idea and if you can't see the many issues with it then thats on you.

Surely safety is as good a reason as you can get when driving a car

It takes me 20 mins for an eye test

There are no major issues beyond having an eye test is prob something some people don’t want to have and prob out of some fear of having to wear glasses

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/eye-health/why-is-my-eyesight-getting-worse?srsltid=AfmBOoqWzJ0FDq0kNw6PiR9fPx90cpGXzn3buijuSTXrF46Hth2mPcgG

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Surely safety is as good a reason as you can get when driving a car

It takes me 20 mins for an eye test

There are no major issues beyond having an eye test is prob something some people don’t want to have and prob out of some fear of having to wear glasses

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/eye-health/why-is-my-eyesight-getting-worse?srsltid=AfmBOoqWzJ0FDq0kNw6PiR9fPx90cpGXzn3buijuSTXrF46Hth2mPcgG

 

[Billysboots]

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.

There probably are stats out there if anyone cared to look.

But surely you can see (no pun intended) that there are a huge, huge number of people out there who wear corrective eyewear. And I’m willing to bet a considerable number of them have the wrong prescription.

If a driver can’t read a number plate from 20 metres they are a significant risk. Especially when you consider that, at 60mph, a vehicle travels 26 metres every second.

It’s worth watching a documentary called Cause Of Death. I think it’s Ch 4 or 5. One instalment dealt with three fatalities caused by drivers with uncorrected eyesight. It was the investigation into those which gave rise to the proposed change in legislation.

Whilst accepting those involved were over 70, that does not in any way alter the fact there WILL be those under that age who are not declaring visual impairment. I know. I’ve dealt with people just like it.

 

[RichA]

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.

Out of interest, when it was your occupation did you ever see any collated data indicating how often eyesight was a contributing factor in serious collisions?

Edit: I was typing this as you posted the above.

 

[Billysboots]

Out of interest, when it was your occupation did you ever see any collated data indicating how often eyesight was a contributing factor in serious collisions?

Not personally, no. Stats like that are generally collated by local authorities.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

There probably are stats out there if anyone cared to look.

But surely you can see (no pun intended) that there are a huge, huge number of people out there who wear corrective eyewear. And I’m willing to bet a considerable number of them have the wrong prescription.

If a driver can’t read a number plate from 20 metres they are a significant risk. Especially when you consider that, at 60mph, a vehicle travels 26 metres every second.

It’s worth watching a documentary called Cause Of Death. I think it’s Ch 4 or 5. One instalment dealt with three fatalities caused by drivers with uncorrected eyesight. It was the investigation into those which gave rise to the proposed change in legislation.

Whilst accepting those involved were over 70, that does not in any way alter the fact there WILL be those under that age who are not declaring visual impairment. I know. I’ve dealt with people just like it.

Yes I think mandatory tests from retirement age is acceptable for me, and every 2 years .
Changes to align alcohol limits sounds sensible. I see to many drinking a couple of pints and driving home, surely thats worse.

 

[Deleted member 36742]

Yes I think mandatory tests from retirement age is acceptable for me, and every 2 years .

Retirement age is too late.

40 at the latest but ideally every 5 years from licence being granted and then 3 yearly intervals from 40.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Retirement age is too late.

40 at the latest but ideally every 5 years from licence being granted and then 3 yearly intervals from 40.

No chance.

 

[clubchamp98]

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

Maybe the insurance companies could sort this out.

To be insured you have to send an official opticians eye exam

But fear they would just try and make money out of it.

 

[clubchamp98]

Though pop didn’t get to 90, 77, his story pretty much mirrors the above. Being a field service engineer till his mid 40’s he put the miles in, and I’d say he was a very competent driver. By his mid 70’s he made me nervous. He did have a couple of bumps in his latter years, mainly simple stuff like misjudging where the gate post was.

Mine was totally opposite.
After finishing football my dad drove for a living from HGV to a RR chauffeur.

But never had an accident.

One day he announced “ I am selling my car and not driving anymore”
When I asked him why he said “ I’m worried I can’t see or react properly”

But he did mention the standard of driving and how many cars are on the road now.
That was 20 yrs ago.

 

[clubchamp98]

Out of interest, when it was your occupation did you ever see any collated data indicating how often eyesight was a contributing factor in serious collisions?

Edit: I was typing this as you posted the above.

I would bet it’s a lot more than we think .
But it’s missed as a cause of the accident and they look for a obvious cause!

 

[Billysboots]

Yes I think mandatory tests from retirement age is acceptable for me, and every 2 years .
Changes to align alcohol limits sounds sensible. I see to many drinking a couple of pints and driving home, surely thats worse.

A day or so ago you maintained 70 should be the starting point. Now you’re down to 67. That’s a step in the right direction, at least

 

[clubchamp98]

When you think of the safety features in modern cars now the weakest link is the driver.

Having an eye test should be mandatory 2 yearly from the date you pass your test .

Regardless of age as there are plenty of young people wearing glasses.
So age is immaterial imo.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

A day or so ago you maintained 70 should be the starting point. Now you’re down to 67. That’s a step in the right direction, at least