Mandatory eye tests for drivers over 70 being proposed by HMG. Good or bad?

[otherclive]

I think most people would have realised that I was replying to your first sentence. I have no objection with eyesight requirements being increased for all drivers and not just those over 70! Not sure why some in government are harping on about it just being for older drivers?

Here is actually what the Government has issued wrt eyesight of drivers. It’s still a “ consideration”, they don’t rule out extending it to younger drivers, and also consideration is being given as to whether the actual test for driving should include field of vision and not just acuity.

It’s a very comprehensive and understandable document backed up by research into accident studies and other sources.

Introducing mandatory eyesight testing for older drivers

www.gov.uk

 

[RogerL]

I think most people would have realised that I was replying to your first sentence. I have no objection with eyesight requirements being increased for all drivers and not just those over 70! Not sure why some in government are harping on about it just being for older drivers?

The casualty reduction target by introducing mandatory sight checks is aimed at older drivers because they (we!) do have a higher risk of being killed or seriously injured than work age drivers - despite the fact that we drive fewer miles on average and have more experience.

The only drivers the government wants off the roads, by this measure, are those with inadequate eyesight - if it forces a few drivers to wear spectacles to continue driving, that can only be a good thing.

 

[otherclive]

The casualty reduction target by introducing mandatory sight checks is aimed at older drivers because they (we!) do have a higher risk of being killed or seriously injured than work age drivers - despite the fact that we drive fewer miles on average and have more experience.

The only drivers the government wants off the roads, by this measure, are those with inadequate eyesight - if it forces a few drivers to wear spectacles to continue driving, that can only be a good thing.

If my friend had realised earlier through sight tests that he had developed, or was at risk of developing glaucoma, there are medical interventions and advice that may have slowed the rate of progression.

 

[Mel]

A cautionary tale. Our son completely lost the vision in his left eye as a young teen. However when he was 17 he got a field of view assessment which demonstrated that he had sufficient vision in his right eye to learn to drive. He never progressed with this and never learned to drive.
This proved to be a good thing as two years ago very soon after going to a well known high street optician, it was obvious that he really really couldn’t see. I asked him if he had been given the wrong prescription; so he went to an independent opticians who immediately spotted a significant cataract in his right eye. This has now been successfully rectified. Given the timeline the cataract must have been present at the point of his eye test at the high street optician ( although I am sure that they would deny this). Had he been a driver he would have been told that he was fit to drive!
Of course being a responsible person, had he been a driver, he would not have taken to the road but that is perhaps beside the point.
Shouldn’t have gone to the high street optician in question

 

[Jcloughie]

A cautionary tale. Our son completely lost the vision in his left eye as a young teen. However when he was 17 he got a field of view assessment which demonstrated that he had sufficient vision in his right eye to learn to drive. He never progressed with this and never learned to drive.
This proved to be a good thing as two years ago very soon after going to a well known high street optician, it was obvious that he really really couldn’t see. I asked him if he had been given the wrong prescription; so he went to an independent opticians who immediately spotted a significant cataract in his right eye. This has now been successfully rectified. Given the timeline the cataract must have been present at the point of his eye test at the high street optician ( although I am sure that they would deny this). Had he been a driver he would have been told that he was fit to drive!
Of course being a responsible person, had he been a driver, he would not have taken to the road but that is perhaps beside the point.
Shouldn’t have gone to the high street optician in question

High street v independent. I just don’t know. I suspect it comes down to the individual prescriber. I would like to think that larger organisation would have internal quality control and courses to update their staff. While independents might be happy with the status quo.

But I am only guessing.

I use Boots, but only because I have been problem free for many years. Like OC, I also pay the extra for the super-dupa photo of the back of the eye.

John

 

[Buckman]

The casualty reduction target by introducing mandatory sight checks is aimed at older drivers because they (we!) do have a higher risk of being killed or seriously injured than work age drivers - despite the fact that we drive fewer miles on average and have more experience.

The only drivers the government wants off the roads, by this measure, are those with inadequate eyesight - if it forces a few drivers to wear spectacles to continue driving, that can only be a good thing.

Either way older driver's should not be discriminated against and they way around that is all driers to have eye sight tests. We have all seen young drivers that cannot read speed limit signs, see Stop street signs and many cyclists that cannot see red traffic lights.

 

[RogerL]

Either way older driver's should not be discriminated against and they way around that is all driers to have eye sight tests. We have all seen young drivers that cannot read speed limit signs, see Stop street signs and many cyclists that cannot see red traffic lights.

It's not discrimination - older drivers have a higher risk of death or serious injury - that doesn't mean that others have no risk but any safety measures should target where the most benefit will occur.

The reason so many cyclists don't stop at red lights is nothing to do with their sight - it's wilful disregard for the Highway Code - mandatory sight tests for everyone wouldn't stop this.

 

[Buckman]

The reason so many cyclists don't stop at red lights is nothing to do with their sight - it's wilful disregard for the Highway Code - mandatory sight tests for everyone wouldn't stop this.

It ws humorous sarcasm. Seems people have lost their sense of humour in the past 18 months?

 

[ProfJohnL]

This brings me back to the document that Dustydog highlighted in #55 which highlighted the difference in the scope of eyesight testing required to meet each EU member countries driving regulations in 2017. Spoiler ... The UK has one of the lowest standards!

The report was produced by the ECOO (European Council of Optometry & Optics) which is a Trade Organisation and seems to be a preemptive Consensus Paper, rather than a research document promoted by the UE Council. As such it has a bias towards extreme testing, which would bring additional income to the ECOO's members.

I do think the UK's present system of basically self certification of eyesight, is inadequate, and there are probably several thousand drivers on the road whose real eyesight presently would fail the number plate at 20M cursory test. There are probably another few thousands of people who have medically inferior eyesight who are driving against medical advice. This probably indicates that our present standards of monitoring are set too low, and frequency and type of tests should be reviewed.

This does not preclude the possibility that our present UK system actually may already meet the practical ideal minimum standard.

I think some research is needed to define what the practical minimum standard for sight to drive and how that can assessed when and by whom. Should it be mandatory for all drivers regardless of age?

 

[otherclive]

This brings me back to the document that Dustydog highlighted in #55 which highlighted the difference in the scope of eyesight testing required to meet each EU member countries driving regulations in 2017. Spoiler ... The UK has one of the lowest standards!

The report was produced by the ECOO (European Council of Optometry & Optics) which is a Trade Organisation and seems to be a preemptive Consensus Paper, rather than a research document promoted by the UE Council. As such it has a bias towards extreme testing, which would bring additional income to the ECOO's members.

I do think the UK's present system of basically self certification of eyesight, is inadequate, and there are probably several thousand drivers on the road whose real eyesight presently would fail the number plate at 20M cursory test. There are probably another few thousands of people who have medically inferior eyesight who are driving against medical advice. This probably indicates that our present standards of monitoring are set too low, and frequency and type of tests should be reviewed.

This does not preclude the possibility that our present UK system actually may already meet the practical ideal minimum standard.

I think some research is needed to define what the practical minimum standard for sight to drive and how that can assessed when and by whom. Should it be mandatory for all drivers regardless of age?

I have read the paper and its conclusions in the “Call to Action” most certainly do not recommend moving to more extreme testing. Certainly there’s a recommendation to require eyesight testing when a licence is renewed. A recommendation to standardise visual acuity testing, Education that number plate reading is not a good measure of visual acuity testing, ant to instigate further research into the effects of eyesight deficiencies in accidents. There is also a conclusion in that the effects of eyesight deficiencies in in the cause of accidents is not well understood. See first sentence on page 7 plus subsequent text in third conclusion, and references.

Given the body that prepared this report I didn’t read it as recommending extreme testing, or even touting for business

PS Dustys post at #58 is a different topic organisation. But I can’t get the link to open unless I copy and paste the link.

 

[Oscarmax]

I am all for these tests over the years my eye sight like the rest of us has deteriorated, its an age thing, I am surprised it has not been set at 50/55 years of age, I am not being singled out, because of age, unfortunately as we get older thing just don't work as well as they used to.

I will have and gladly have my annual eye test at Specsavers, if they say I can not longer drive so be it.

 

[Dustydog]

Still works for me Clive . Try this link

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/visual-field-testing

It looks the same🙉

Fact of the day.
PC v Facebook page received 111 comments over the last 23 hours on this very same subject thread. Do you think the posters know we are here🙀

 

[Hutch]

Scottish Eye Test Chart.


Oh come on break a 😊

 

[otherclive]

Still works for me Clive . Try this link

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/visual-field-testing

It looks the same🙉

Fact of the day.
PC v Facebook page received 111 comments over the last 23 hours on this very same subject thread. Do you think the posters know we are here🙀

Dusty
Thank you, I did manage to open it by copy and paste into a new tab. But the one above opens directly from your post above.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Given the body that prepared this report I didn’t read it as recommending extreme testing, or even touting for business.

The opening paragraph in the documents executive summary states
"This paper is a consensus of opinion from the eye care sector across Europe in regard to driving and visual standards. This is timely in 2017as the European Commission (EC) is establishing a work stream to examine how the Medical Annex of Directive 2009/113/EC on driving licences has been implemented in Member States. While this exercise is welcome to endeavour to harmonise this across Europe, this document highlights the lack of uniformity in how visual standards are applied. It also summarises considerable differences in the application of these standards in European countries."

This reflects the ECOO was not specifically invited to contribute to the EUs commission that is reviewing the medical annex of Directive 2009/113/EC, Instead the ECOO document is unsolicited and has been prepared to lobby the commissions deliberations.

The ECOO is a trade organisation, and their reason for existence is to act in the best interests of their members much like the NCC and the SMMT where they try to influence government's to make decisions that are likely to benefit their members, which boils down to increasing trade or profitability. Their "Consensus document" does not specifically say the ECOO is looking for stars in all boxes across the EU, but their failure to suggest a reasonable strategy is a ploy to suggest that the EU should adopt the highest standards without directly saying it.

Unlike the NCC and SMMT the ECOO leans heavily on the perception that its members are thought of as being part of the Health Care services, which many people may consider to have a higher order of honesty and credibility, but the reality is the matter of eyesight testing for driving is not driven by health care needs, but it's a great opportunity to force more people through their doors for tests, which I have no doubt will be paid for by the driver. It is in their interests to lobby for the most thorough testing.

I personally believe the UK's present eyesight test for driving does leave quite a lot to be desired, so I am not against having it tightened up, But I also have to take the more scientific view that what the ECOO stands for may be overkill, so in my mind I believe the Gov't should first review what the minimum standards of eye sight should be required for driving, and then consider what level of testing should be applied to assess a drivers eyesight.

 

[otherclive]

The opening paragraph in the documents executive summary states
"This paper is a consensus of opinion from the eye care sector across Europe in regard to driving and visual standards. This is timely in 2017as the European Commission (EC) is establishing a work stream to examine how the Medical Annex of Directive 2009/113/EC on driving licences has been implemented in Member States. While this exercise is welcome to endeavour to harmonise this across Europe, this document highlights the lack of uniformity in how visual standards are applied. It also summarises considerable differences in the application of these standards in European countries."

This reflects the ECOO was not specifically invited to contribute to the EUs commission that is reviewing the medical annex of Directive 2009/113/EC, Instead the ECOO document is unsolicited and has been prepared to lobby the commissions deliberations.

The ECOO is a trade organisation, and their reason for existence is to act in the best interests of their members much like the NCC and the SMMT where they try to influence government's to make decisions that are likely to benefit their members, which boils down to increasing trade or profitability. Their "Consensus document" does not specifically say the ECOO is looking for stars in all boxes across the EU, but their failure to suggest a reasonable strategy is a ploy to suggest that the EU should adopt the highest standards without directly saying it.

Unlike the NCC and SMMT the ECOO leans heavily on the perception that its members are thought of as being part of the Health Care services, which many people may consider to have a higher order of honesty and credibility, but the reality is the matter of eyesight testing for driving is not driven by health care needs, but it's a great opportunity to force more people through their doors for tests, which I have no doubt will be paid for by the driver. It is in their interests to lobby for the most thorough testing.

I personally believe the UK's present eyesight test for driving does leave quite a lot to be desired, so I am not against having it tightened up, But I also have to take the more scientific view that what the ECOO stands for may be overkill, so in my mind I believe the Gov't should first review what the minimum standards of eye sight should be required for driving, and then consider what level of testing should be applied to assess a drivers eyesight.

Prof in my post I recognised that ECOO is a body representing commercial organisations, but you said in #84 they had a bias to “ extreme testing” which after reading the paper I said I did not agree with your view. You ignore the fact that the report also recognises the fact that there is no clear line between visual defects, fitness to drive and accidents and the report recommends that more research is required, and so do you. So your latest long post does nothing to change my conclusions.

 

[Buckman]

The opening paragraph in the documents executive summary states
"This paper is a consensus of opinion from the eye care sector across Europe in regard to driving and visual standards. This is timely in 2017as the European Commission (EC) is establishing a work stream to examine how the Medical Annex of Directive 2009/113/EC on driving licences has been implemented in Member States. While this exercise is welcome to endeavour to harmonise this across Europe, this document highlights the lack of uniformity in how visual standards are applied. It also summarises considerable differences in the application of these standards in European countries."

This reflects the ECOO was not specifically invited to contribute to the EUs commission that is reviewing the medical annex of Directive 2009/113/EC, Instead the ECOO document is unsolicited and has been prepared to lobby the commissions deliberations.

The ECOO is a trade organisation, and their reason for existence is to act in the best interests of their members much like the NCC and the SMMT where they try to influence government's to make decisions that are likely to benefit their members, which boils down to increasing trade or profitability. Their "Consensus document" does not specifically say the ECOO is looking for stars in all boxes across the EU, but their failure to suggest a reasonable strategy is a ploy to suggest that the EU should adopt the highest standards without directly saying it.

Unlike the NCC and SMMT the ECOO leans heavily on the perception that its members are thought of as being part of the Health Care services, which many people may consider to have a higher order of honesty and credibility, but the reality is the matter of eyesight testing for driving is not driven by health care needs, but it's a great opportunity to force more people through their doors for tests, which I have no doubt will be paid for by the driver. It is in their interests to lobby for the most thorough testing.

I personally believe the UK's present eyesight test for driving does leave quite a lot to be desired, so I am not against having it tightened up, But I also have to take the more scientific view that what the ECOO stands for may be overkill, so in my mind I believe the Gov't should first review what the minimum standards of eye sight should be required for driving, and then consider what level of testing should be applied to assess a drivers eyesight.

An excellent well written and researched post. One of the reason why I highlighted a Specsavers contract as any optician should be able to do the eye test otherwise the government is stating that other opticians are not as good when in fact they may be better?

 

[otherclive]

An excellent well written and researched post. One of the reason why I highlighted a Specsavers contract whose owner just happens to be a donor towards a certain unpopular party. Any optician should be able to do the eye test otherwise the government is stating that other opticians are not as good when in fact they may be better?

Specsavers say that they haven’t made any donations to any political party. This is in the public domain on X and the party that made the false claim about Specsavers retracted its claim. Specsavers do support a wide range of charities and other areas that seek to improve community and the environment. This is well documented in the link below.

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/about/charitable-partnerships

 

[Buckman]

Specsavers say that they haven’t made any donations to any political party. This is in the public domain on X and the party that made the false claim about Specsavers retracted its claim. Specsavers do support a wide range of charities and other areas that seek to improve community and the environment. This is well documented in the link below.

https://www.specsavers.co.uk/about/charitable-partnerships

Wow very quick to jump to their defence?

 

[otherclive]

Wow very quick to jump to their defence?

I am certainly not jumping to their defence but just correcting incorrect information where accurate sources via the Electoral Commission or Companies House show the true facts.

 

[RogerL]

Wow very quick to jump to their defence?

Fake news needs quick denials, whether accidental or deliberate.

 

[Buckman]

I am certainly not jumping to their defence but just correcting incorrect information where accurate sources via the Electoral Commission or Companies House show the true facts.

I corrected my post, but I am totally amazed that you managed to find that information within minutes. Which search engine do you use?

 

[Dustydog]

An excellent well written and researched post. One of the reason why I highlighted a Specsavers contract as any optician should be able to do the eye test otherwise the government is stating that other opticians are not as good when in fact they may be better?

In part true.
But it is well documented and accepted HMG, Local Authorities etc must be seen to exercise Due Diligence in appointing Contractors .

Specsavers are a Joint Venture Partnership where qualified professional optometrists, audiologists and retail partners co own each store with Specsavers.

There are other National Chains who would have have submitted tenders for becoming the approved global “eye testers”.
Using individual opticians could become a logistical and managerial nightmare for HMG.

As I said earlier our experiences of Specsavers have been excellent . But like cars and caravans we all know things go awry😜

 

[otherclive]

I corrected my post, but I am totally amazed that you managed to find that information within minutes. Which search engine do you use?

It’s more a matter of how the search requirements are phrased.

 

[otherclive]

In part true.
But it is well documented and accepted HMG, Local Authorities etc must be seen to exercise Due Diligence in appointing Contractors .

Specsavers are a Joint Venture Partnership where qualified professional optometrists, audiologists and retail partners co own each store with Specsavers.

There are other National Chains who would have have submitted tenders for becoming the approved global “eye testers”.
Using individual opticians could become a logistical and managerial nightmare for HMG.

As I said earlier our experiences of Specsavers have been excellent . But like cars and caravans we all know things go awry😜

My main reason for not now using Specsavers is that the local ones seem incredibly busy and have limited waiting areas whilst waiting for things like the OCT, peripheral test and glaucoma test. Sometimes you are virtually in a corridor. Also being a big company I get the feeling that everything is timed for throughput. Whereas our local Boots is far more relaxed and you can discuss things more comprehensively with the staff. But fair play to Specsavers they find a dilated optical nerve and got me an appointment to the Bristol Eye Hospital quickly.