If you’re driving and you can’t read a number plate 20 metres ahead of you and the police stop you, there’s a chance you could lose your license. New measures to cut down on drivers with poor eyesight have been announced with the police now testing people at the roadside to stop dangerous or reckless driving.
On the spot test
So far, three forces have announced they are trying a new system where they check driver’s eyesight if they are stopped. Thames Valley, Hampshire and West Midlands police forces will ask drivers if they can read a number plate 20 metres away from the roadside. Drivers who cannot manage this could see their license revoked immediately.
The trial will take place over the course of September with the aim of ensuring everyone driving on the UK’s roads has the right level of vision. Police plan to stop drivers and put them through the test at strategic points across the road networks of the three areas. The data collected will be used to get a more complete picture of the poor driver eyesight issue in the UK, something that is currently underreported in government statistics.
Take vision seriously
According to the government and the police forces involved, the idea is to get drivers to take their eyesight seriously. Sergeant Rob Heard, speaking on behalf of the forces involves, said that everyone needs good vision to drive because not being able to see a hazard or react to a situation quickly enough can have catastrophic consequences.
Currently, the legal limit is being able to read a number plate at 20 metres, which is around five car lengths away. This is a minimum requirement, and there is talk that a regular eyesight test with an optician may also become compulsory for people wanting to drive.
The move is part of the Cassie’s Law initiative that means driver licenses can be removed within hours if someone is found to be posing a threat to other road users. The changes took place in 2013 following a campaign by Jackie McCord, whose daughter Cassie was killed by an elderly motorist who had been told not to drive by the police.
Before the law, the police had to write or fax a request to have a license removed, but under Cassie’s Law, they could telephone or send an email to speed up the process. This means police can even email straight from their vehicles to a dedicated email address at the DVLA and the license will be immediately revoked. Police are then able to prevent the person from driving any further.
The new trial could also see drivers facing prosecution if they don’t manage to comply with the test. There is an estimated 1.5 million license holder on the roads who have never had an eye test and crashes involving drivers that are suffering with poor eyesight are thought to cause over 2,900 causalities a year.
Campaigners also say that the UK’s testing system is antiquated and not fit for purpose. Once motorists pass their test with good eyesight, there is nothing further that requires them to be checked during the course of their life.
Vision Express and Brake are two campaigners who want the government to tighten up driver vision laws and ensure that testing is compulsory before taking a test but also each time a photocard license is renewed.
Brake spokesperson Joshua Harris said that it ‘stands to reason’ that good eyesight is a fundament of driving. But the current system doesn’t do enough to protect people from drivers whose eyesight deteriorates. And that it is ‘madness’ that there is no requirement for drivers’ vision to be tested during the years of them driving.
Vision Express added that their recent survey showed 75% of people think a recent eye test should be mandatory when someone is renewing their driving license.
What happens if you lose your license?
What about for drivers who fail the test, often unaware that they were breaking the rules or how poor their eyesight was? The DVLA can revoke your license for a number of medical reasons and then you would have to apply for a new one including paying as if the licence was brand new. They will also give you a disqualification period during which you cannot reapply.
Once this is finished, you can reapply eight weeks before the end of the period. You may need to provide evidence that you are fit and well to drive and the DVLA will advise about this. After this, they then inform you if you are being granted a new license, but can refuse again.
Seeing the problem
For many drivers, they just aren’t aware that their vision isn’t up to the standard. Corrective glasses or contact lenses usually make a massive difference in the difference between looking and seeing. With the new crackdown, drivers are having to seriously consider their eyesight and how well they can see when driving.
How’s your vision? Could you pass the 20 metres test if you were stopped? And do you think eye tests should be mandatory for drivers? Let us know below
The 20-metre test is a total nonsense! Police officers are not qualified optometrists, therefore they have no right to decide on a person’s “fitness to drive”. In the same way that a drunk driver is not convicted for failing a roadside breath test (the machine at the police station provides the evidential breath test), the “offender’s” vehicle should be flagged and picked up on ANPR cameras if driven whilst the police await a copy of a current sight test by a registered and competent optician, and a copy of the sight test kept on file at a centralised location (DVLA, perhaps?), and a reminder two years hence that an up-to-date eye test is required. This scheme could operate in the same way that a HORT1 is issued, giving the person a period of time to produce the relevant documents (a copy of their current eye test). Typically, a HORT1 had to be satisfI’d within 7 days of issue. A similar grace period should be given, with a warning that no vehicle should be driven within this 7-day period.
Don’t see the problem here, driving examiners ask all candidates to read a number plate at 20m and if they fail to do so then they fail their test immediately.
Ok. But is not qualify. Is not eyes doctor test. As he use machinery for test alcohol.
I had a learner driver certified by an optician to have good enough eyesight to read a number plate but on her test on a really bright sunny day she struggled to read a plate due to glare and the examiner failed her. But if you have to have an optometrist cert for eyesight before a test then this is open to fraud. Difficult.
An Optician does not check for Visual Crowding during an Eyesight test.
What is visual crowding?
It will be interesting to see hopefully on this site how many drivers that are actually stopped. Will the police stop ALL or disproportionately pick older drivers? Just to clarify, they believe cyclist dont cause accidents in this country (actually they do) so by that reasoning younger dricers can also suffer with BAD eyesight. What about cyclists (as road users) should also be apart of this, but I bet they wont be as cyclists do no wrong…………..yeah right!!!!!
I think older drivers will be targeted, easy to spot. That said If you have been prescribed specticles for driving wear them. The boy and girl racers cause more deaths on the road statisticly.
Why is it that the comment threads always descend into anti-cyclist rants? It suggests that there’s a worrying number of motorists incapable of sharing the roads in a civilised fashion.
I don’t wish to share the roads with pedal cyclists (no problem with motor cyclists).
I want them to use their own cycle paths, paid for out of their own taxes.
Bill, I don’t really want to share the roads with anyone, if I’m honest, I want them all to myself. But since all roads are paid for through general taxation, we all have to share them. Before you try to run peddle cyclists off the roads, you should brush up on your history: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads
Jonto, I don’t know where you are from, but if you travel around London as a pedestrian the cyclists are more of a hazard than other road traffic because not only do they jump lights, they think its ok to cut through onto pavements to get around traffic jams. About time there is more regulations for cyclists? Hell yes.
So the rules test drivers with myopia (short sightedness) but ignore drivers with long sight. They’re ok reading road signs in the distance but can’t clearly see the dials in the car (warning lights, speedometer etc) and miss near obstacles. Leave testing to optometrists.
The thought of someone with tunnel vision is horrendous – 20 metres would be no problem
Or even invent bifocals.
Yes not very well thought through really is it? I suspect the legislation dates back to pre WWII. It seems a regular mandatory eye test is the obligation that the law should be written to impose and make that a condition of car tax purchase as insurance is. And then police can get out of their cars to work on crime rather than chasing motorists for yet more poor law.
About time this issue was tackled, though not sure about the methodology.
I think a temporary revoke should be applied giving the driver the option to have an eye and health check. If all is then OK, the licence is reinstated, otherwise revoke is permanent.
If driver later has corrective surgery, to restore sight, they would have to reapply
And how about involving a judge or magistrate?
They have closed most courts and the rest have horrendous waiting lists.
How about the same test for ALL road users including Cyclists.
And revoking cyclists’ driver licences if they don’t pass. Oh wait…
Adult cyclists are quite often drivers also so have a license they also can forfeit and if not perhaps they should be bound over by court order not cycle on the roads or pavements? But they’re not thinking this through very well as blind people will be able to use self drive cars so will these be exempt in these vehicles and what if it can be manually overriden by a driver?
Why not send people to make eye test’s? On regular basis, very 2 or 3 year if you are under 50”s let’s say, and yearly after.
As we do with car MOT.
I agree completely I have my eyes tested annually as I drive for a living. There is also the problem of in car distractions with infotainment screens etc
Maybe it’s time things like cruise control and radio controls were standardised like indicators are (all on the left with modern cars)
Opticians send reminders for eye tests every two years, mine does annually. But how many people are registered with opticians? If they have not had glasses or been taken regularly as a child/youth then they may not believe paying yearly for an eye test when they have no obvious problem is a waste. Maybe dropping the test fee and making a yearly test mandatory to keep the licence would be optimal?
That makes perfect sense, but only if you are ignorant of the fact that a typical car has a momentum of over 35,000 kgm/s in a built-up area compared to a cyclist’s momentum of less than 800 kgm/s. Yes, occasionally cyclist’s cause serious injury but I can’t believe that anyone is actually stupid enough to think that a partially sighted cyclist presents as much danger as the driver of a Chelsea tractor, or even the smallest city car, who has inadequate vision.
Just because a cyclist has a much lower level of kinetic energy, it doesn’t mean they are any safer. What are the figures of energy needed to break an arm, leg or fracture a skull? If these are below 800 kgm/s then it’s a case of a bike can kill you, a car can kill you more.
Cars are wider and harder (although have pedestrian crumple zones), but bikes have no pedestrian safety aspects. And cars don’t drive on pavements.
So why have there never been any ram-raiders on bicycles or bicycles being used in a terror attack the way cars, vans and lorries have been used. My point was about relative risk, which you both recognise (‘car can kill you more’, whatever that might mean) and deny! Yes, an irresponsible cyclist could hurt a pedestrian but the chances of death or serious injury are many times lower than if that pedestrian were hit by a car, or much worse a 4×4, van or lorry, none of which are pedestrian friendly.
The only fair way for checking drivers that may have sight problems,is to check those not wearing glasses when stopped.
It states on your license if you should be wearing glasses to drive but many will take off prescription glasses and wear un prescribed sun glasses.
That won’t work, might be wearing contact lenses
Make it compulsory to have a health and eye sight test at licence renewal or 5 years.
An optician would check your vision every 2 years, so that should be the prerequisite.
Yes, when to you apply for road tax add vision test to list of required documents
Driving with poor eye sight, could be the same as driving in the rain without wipers, you can see, but, not clearly. Get your eyes checked, before the police check you
I agree with Ian make it compulsory at the Licence renewal or 5 years, and let the Police get on with the more Dangerous drivers out there and there is plenty of them
No I think this is wrong on all counts being able to read a number plate at 20 metres is way too old fashioned. A driver is not looking at other number plates when driving if you can see the car quite clearly then that is good and you are able to read the road signs that should be enough. A driver is not blind if they cannot read a number plate but they can still see the number plate then this should be enough. As for having your licence revoked there and then this is absolutely appalling, and another form of robbery by the government and the DVLA. This is total abuse of our rights to drive and having someone dictate there own views on this is definitely not right. Give the driver a chance to go and have an eye test if needed and get glasses and show this has been done would be a much fairer way to everyone concerned,
The test isn’t there so you can read number plates at 20 metres. If you can’t read a number plate at 20 metres, you can’t see a car in enough detail to evaluate in the seconds available if it is moving and if so, how fast at say 2-300 metres not to mention all the other vehicles, bikes, mororbikes and pedestrians all at the same time. This test is already applied for new drivers, seems perfectly reasonable to have it applied by the police for existing drivers. It isn’t perfect and won’t pick up all drivers that should not drive, there are other important issues such as blind spots but just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t make it a vast improvement that is easily applied and worth doing. I did initally think while reading this that an immediate loss of licence (as opposed to a suspension) was harsh but actually, because it is so simple, most drivers could test themselves everytime they get in the car so to risk others because you can’t be bothered to do so probably does make it a valid penalty.
Traditionally, penalties are imposed by Courts – not policemen.
I disagree. Get drivers who can’t see off the road. Immediately. They can prove their sight is good enough in the courts or when they go to an optician.
I expect most people would be upset if a loved one got run over by someone who knew they had poor sight. So unnecessary.
You wouldn’t say that if like me you had been knocked off a bike by a vehicle while on a cycle route. I was off work for 15 weeks and needed surgery. All the driver could say was SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn’t see you). Only this week an elderly driver pulled over way too soon and hit the side of my vehicle and said “I didn’t see you you must have been in my blindspot “ I was in an articulated truck.
Hello if the government have to bring this new law in why don’t they every time you’re MOT is up for renewal remind you of an eye test the
Reason being when you have an eye test at the
Options they say come back in three years
Just a thought .
Mr Trevor Pearce
Ok! ok! Makes a lot of ordinary sense but a bit draconian, with little common sense, as usual.
As with being caught at 5% over the speed limit, in order to avoid a dangerous incident, which could be the first time in 40-years, a law-abiding citizen can now easily become criminalised.
Big brother is now watching our every move via our car number plates and I hope they (the Authorities) are not being ultra selective and picking on the older driver, because of one sad incident. We know that young drivers, with good eyesight, are a bigger risk on our roads, particularly when using their mobile phones or having their music thumping away whilst driving.
Recently, I was driving home when I suddenly had stabbing pain in my left eye, as if it was a piece of grit. I was close enough to my home to continue and took particular care whilst driving. It turned out that I had an In-growing eyelash, which is not uncommon and had it quickly removed at my local hospital. My eyesite immediately returned to normal, without further problems. For a small moment in time, if I had been stopped for an eye test, I might have failed, had my driving licence removed, cost money to get my licence back, destroyed my lifestyle, with all the stress and hassle that goes with it. No doubt, insurance companies will jump on the band wagon and increase our premiums.
Summary: Cut out the draconian aspect of this and give the honest citizen a chance to prove their case before taking their licence. Our ancient laws have evolved in order to for the ordinary citizen to prove they are innocent, before being proved guilty. This seems a retrograde step. The police are not daft and they can sense the criminally minded driver. With the way our Laws are heading, they, the Police, are are being hamstrung and zombified.
I assume you have 2 eyes so close the painful one use the good one. I think you would soon change your mind if a relative was killed or injured by a driver with poor eyesight.
About time!!! I’m 68 and have had sight checks every year for the last 30 years. If I injured or even killed somebody because my sight wasn’t good enough to drive, I don’t know if I could carry on. Forget all this c**p like “the police aren’t qualified optometrists”, if you can’t meet MINIMUM sight requirements, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive until you can prove that your sight is up to scratch.
Mikee, you’re basically correct, however, this would be better handled with a very stiff fine and a mandatory sight test at the opticians, rather than revoking people’s licences.
In no way am I supporting those selfish idiots who haven’t had their eyes tested. And I totally agree with people receiving an immediate ban until they produce a sight correction certificate at the police station. But cancelling a licence will have far reaching consequences.
Again, this is the police seeing themselves as judge and jury.
We are getting near to a police state that the goverment would like
Absolute credit to you for your very responsible attitude. If only everyone viewed their licence as a privilege and not a god given right and did their utmost to make themselves a safe and competent driver.
Like I said, police aren’t qualified optometrists. My eyesight is better than 20/20. I know this to be a factual statement because I’ve had Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) surgery, and post-surgery my vision and eye pressure was thoroughly examined by a fully-qualified ophthalmic surgeon. I am due to have my vision checked again in November/December. I don’t expect to see any deterioration in my vision in that 2 years since the operation.
If anybody has any doubts about the validity of my claims, you can search online for: DR SANJAY MANTRY, NUFFIELD HEALTH, GLASGOW (https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/consultants/mr-sanjay-mantry)
Well said, Mikee
I am already reading a host of valid comments. Surely, the powers that be, have taken all these into consideration!!??. I think not. To think we are having draconian laws introduced at a drop of a hat by so-called, highly paid, competent officials!!
I where glasses and have my eyes tested every year I’m 78 years old and think eye test is very important
Quite agree and the DFLA are very helpful if you phone them with a question about any problems you have. It’s not only eyesight that’s a problem what about those that have diabetes type1 that haven’t informed DVLA?
Easy target syndrome. Meanwhile, burglar, thieves and violent criminals go free.
What is this nonsense that the POLICE may take away a licence?.That is the prerogative of the Courts. Next week’s headline: Police to throw people in prison without that tiresome need to bother with a judge or magistrate.
Get real, Bill. They are just testing the water. If loads of drivers fail, the government may see fit to legislate ‘re. Regulat eyesight checks. It is definitely needed!
Vision Express campaigning for frequent eye tests?
Just their way of jumping on the band waggon i myself will never use them again they just want the cash nothing to do with safty
When I went to them their prices were less than 30% that of my previous optician so I go every year now – I value my sight. Stop grumbling.
I believe many will have had similar thoughts, it’s a win win situation for them.
Given that 20 metres is so specific, weather and light conditions may play a part in determining whether someone passes or fails; someone who could read a number plate at 20 metres in good light may not be able to in fading light, so will pass/fail test dependent upon luck. Also, how will the number plate be determined? Some letters/numbers are similar to others, so unless they use a standard plate, that again could be down to luck. Same variables apply to the driving test of course (unless they do it differently these days!). I think losing your licence after one shot at it is a little severe, maybe a report and re-check under less stressful conditions might be a better approach.
This says it all!!!! Number plates are standard and if you see one that is different it is illegal, that it why they would fail the mot. Whether the light is good or not doesn’t come into it. Would you plead not guilty to killing someone on the grounds that you didn’t see them because the light was bad? When will people wake up to that fact that having a driving licence is a privilege and not a right and if everyone drove with the attitude that we must not harm anyone else then driving would be taken a lot more seriously
MikeB. Wrong. Driving is a human write, not a privilege. Privilege have only queen drive without a licence.
When you can tell the difference between write and right I might take your post more seriously.
The opportunity to be able to drive is a legal right.
It’s got nothing to do with human rights.
And my human rights require other motorists to comply with the law and not place my life, and the lives of others, in danger simply because they can’t see properly.
I average about 40,000 miles a year and it’s fairly obvious that many of my fellow motorists are struggling to see.
It’s a cause for concern when people tell me they find it difficult to drive at night because they can’t see properly….
I believe for the driving test they use a set car which has proper legal number plate and that it is clean. A great many plates on the road are not clean and easily readable as modern aerodynamic cars seem to throw all the rubish on them.
Although my optician tests my eyes every year and specifically checks for legal driving limits I find this threat very scarey. Yes it is important that we all see clearly while we are driving, but I don’t believe that a policeman should be able to ban someone from driving with no proof of wrongdoing but his word/judgment and on such a hit and miss test. Failing a driving test on this type of rough and ready guide is one thing but arbitary removal of licence is very different
This really needs to be rolled out nationally. I encounter no end of drivers who appear to struggle seeing beyond their bonnet. Driving with poor eyesight is reckless, stupid and utterly selfish. Even those with good eyesight need to improve their observational skills as so many drivers react rather than pro act. If they just take time to scan what’s happening around them and anticipate their driving will be smoother and safer. Of course if you cannot see what’s happening, well…..
So the police are now judge and juror?
I agree that you should not drive with defective eye sight, those who are caught should have the right to a fair trial just like a drunk or speeding driver would.
It’s a difficult issue to resolve I guess.
Here in South Africa we have to renew our licence card every 5 years and the eyetest is mandatory. You can have it done at an optometrist which saves time queuing at the Licensing Office which are situated in each Municipality.
Drivers who fail the roadside test should be given a producer for the results of a proper eye test. I’ve always struggled reading numberplate at distance, yet I have good eyesight as confirmed by a recent eye test. I don’t require glasses.
Will they be stopping drivers without cause? Or just those driving badly?
Many employers will dismiss staff that drive for a living and have their licence revoked for ANY reason. Anyone that suffers such a fate should sue the Police for damages. It is a nonsense to state failing to read a number plate at 20M means you are not aware of events in your field of vision when driving. An eyesight test at an optician is performed in a controlled environment and is the only way to assess if a person is safe to drive. Yet more garbage the average driver has to put up with alongside being ripped off financially by over zealous speed enforcement or bus lane/parking fines.
It’s a bit of click-bait. The author of the article is basically saying what several news outlets are also reporting (albeit her spelling is poor and she doesnt seem to know the difference between ‘licence’ the noun and ‘license’ the verb.
Under Cassie’s Law, police can request of DVLA, an urgent revoking of a licence, if they believe a driver is a risk to other road-users.
Theyre not judge, jury and executioner, if they request a revocation and it’s granted, they may stop somebody from killing another teenager, through being unfit to drive.
Well once again we are scraping the barrel for revenue. Also improving sales for optematrists. Have you ever waited in an opticians? Police today don’t deal with the real issues of our communities they are either surreptitiously there with there cameras trying to catch someone going over the speed limit now some more jobs to increase revenue and belittle a police force that is already failing and disliked by the masses for becoming like a police state.
Do some normal policing deal with crime and drug and alcohol problems.
Let DVLA set its standards in relation to driving. Let them liaise with optematrists and have a 5 yearly check of someone with sight difficulties or something along those lines.
Stop penalising us all. We have had enough…
Yes. Pop in centres or clinics would be useful.
My Optician confirmed my Eyesight was well within the Legal requirements for Driving, however I still cannot read a car Number Plate at 20m due to what is called Visual Crowding.
Does this also include motor bikes and mopeds who seem to have their own laws on the road, many a time i have been held up in traffic and from out of nowhere a stupid motorbike rider comes along uses the wrong side of the road to overtake all the cars in the queue – so perhaps instead of going on about motorists try doing the bikes as well – thats if you can catch up with them – i have often seen them tearing up the road hell for leather bet they wont be priority, you dont have to be old to have bad eyesight, oh just a thought if you can read a number plate 20 metres away and wear glasses does this still apply???????!!!!!!
Motorbikes filtering through traffic is legal for a reason, it seems you are blind to these reasons. Unfortunately glasses are not going to help!
Kindly alert us to the reasons for ‘filtering’ being legal. Lanes are there to control the traffic so everyone knows what is likely to happen next.
I cannot think of one single reason for ‘filtering’ (i.e. undertaking without warning or leaving adequate space often ignoring a vehicle indicating an intended turn) being legal – and it is one of the most dangerous practices there is apart from overtaking on the wrong side of the double white lines which also seems to be a normal practice.
Why not make an eye test mandatory after say 50 tears old as eyes do deteriorate and without an eye test certificate then road find license and insurance would not be available. I am way over 50 but do see lots of cars obviously struggling to see at night time.
I don’t have a problem with this provided that all ages and road users have this random testing applied to them NOT just the elderly. For example the number of cyclists that ignore traffic lights and give way signage could be down to poor vision and not just arrogance.
As an optician I get people that say to me my eyesight is fine for driving . When I tell them that it is below the legal limit without new glasses their stock answer is , well no one will know as I won’t get stopped . It makes me so mad and I often have a real go at them for being so selfish . So I think spot testing across all ages is a very good thing
Another money making scam how about free eye tests ,take the money out of road tax..
Another money making scam..if it’s about safety take these tests out of the road tax..
How will the police cope with this – they can’t cope with drivers using their ‘phones while driving as evidenced by the number of people who are still seen doing it.
I think it’s disgusting they are cutting police forces , there’s more motorbike thefts and car burglary in the country and murders , and now drag police to do random eye tests are they trained eye specialist no so stop taking police from there proper jobs
Why 20m? What evidence is there to suggest that people who cannot read a number plate at 20m are less likely to spot a child on the road at 100m? Has that test been chosen because it tests the necessary functioning of the eye or is it some arbitrary thing they plucked from thin air in the 50s because it was easy to measure? Perhaps we should introduce a reaction time test too? And a tiredness test, and a quick thinking test, and a speed of complex sensory input analysis test, and a quick motor response test, and a sensitivity to light test. They are all valid, which is most valid? Or we could spend the money on the NHS instead.
In the meantime we reduce bus services so that those unable to drive are stuck at home.
In my last job I delivered and fitted glasses to elderly and infirm people. When I challenged an old gentleman about his vision, even with glasses, not being safe for driving his wife chimed in with; “Oh it’s OK I read the road signs for him!” I asked what about mothers with children crossing the road? Do you point them out in good time too? They could see nothing wrong with what they were doing. I reported him. Don’t know what happened.
Something should be done. I couple of summers ago I was out cycling and a car pulled out from a side turning, but quite slowly. It seemed as if he was going to join my side of the road after I had passed the junction. But he just kept on coming and drove into the side of me. I was then on the bike but leaning against his front nearside wing. I was shouting to get his attention, as was a pedestrian, on the other side of the road. Neither his vision or hearing seemed to alert him to the fact that he had a cyclist half perched on his wing. In due course the driver eventually found another gear and got up to say 15MPH and was still going straight and not too near the kerb, so I disentangled myself from the car, avoiding being hit by the wing mirror, and we both carried on along the road. From what I had seen the driver was an elderly gent and I do not believe that he ever had a clue that I was even on the road.
(As it happens, I was probably very lucky not to have been squeezed into the kerb or a parked car, or dragged along faster by his wing mirror or ending up with part of me or the bike under the car.)
ALL I CAN SAY IS ABOUT TIME TOO AND I WEAR GLASSES
Draconian measures, should have been thought through.
Another Tory knee jerk.
Would Labour recognise drivers’ rights and let them drive with poor eyesight because it might offend someone to say their eyesight is too poor?
Agree wholeheartedly. Too many people thinking they are clever by using awful American spellings and expressions. At least the person who wrote the heading got it right. Pity he/she didn’t correct the rest of the article.
American spellings are down to lazy use of spellchecker which is usually based on a US dictionary. And, of course, a word may be spelled correctly, but could be the wrong word for the context, e.g. confusion with were, we’re, where, wear, which might all sound the same.
Draconian overkill that will further alienate the puplic with an authoriarian aproach which is very open to abuse.
Have any of readers making comments checked their eyesight by reading a number plate at 20 yards in the last few days ?? If you have then make your comment others ?????
It’s ironic that there should be an advert. for a grammar checker when the website can’t spell “licence ” or “receive ” !
Low and behold yet another way for the Goverment and the DVLA to make extra money. If you fail the test and get banned from driving then have to reapply for a NEW LICENSE how much is that again?? Not just that but there are not enough Police officers on the road anyway so where are these officers coming from to sit at the side of a road and test people’s eye sight. It’s all a money making scheme yet again and I’m sure the police man power could be put to a lot better use.
Not saying people with bad eye sights shouldn’t get a warning to get their eyes checked but how many people are going to risk losing their jobs if they fail the test. If that happens can the people sue the police/DVLA/Goverment for loss of earnings during their ban??
vision express and brake
one sells glasses
another one wants everybody to walk on foot and / or drive Flinstons’ cars limited to 5mph
What about the police, can you ask them if they had a eye test before they drive a police vehicle? or when they finished there shift when they drive in there own vehicle back home. I can remember years ago at a police ball, some of them came out of car park drove back home drunk a passing police car did nothing.
Please make it clear it’s only for non wearing glasses drivers
why is it ? just because someone is wearing glasses it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can read a number plate at 20m, or have had a recent eye test
i still say this has to go through parloment befor it can be law .
Why should it be forvglasses wearers only, do these people have regular checks? I am sure a lot don’t, as there are cost implications to having new prescription lenses.