The link states who can get the free eye tests.
New planned driving rules announced
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
While I think mandatory tests should be introduced for older drivers, I don't think Opticians should be required to report that carries too high a risk of people risking their eye health by not going and getting tested out of fear of getting banned.
There's not much evidence that this will help. The best comparison is probably to Scotland where they dropped the drink drive limit from 0.08 g/dl to 0.05g/dl but that produced no apparent drop in RTAs; without that evidence I think it's more about puritanism than actual accident prevention.
Last edited:
So not everyone in England can get free eye tests which people are suggesting to be mandatory to be allowed to drive for everyone. As long as there were protections in place to stop opticians price gouging due to a Government mandated rule, it would be ok but businesses are businesses after all.
The above is hypothetical of course as the Government are not proposing regular eye tests for all drivers.
Realistically, an eye test isn't a significant cost compared to running a car. It's not unreasonable, imo, to impose a small cost on drivers for the safety of others. Meanwhile, competition between opticians is high -- even small towns often have more than one -- and many Opticians will test for free as a loss leader to get people to buy glasses/contact lenses from them so I don't think fears of price gouging are realistic here.
Looks like there is going to be more to this than just eye tests.
Curtesy of the BBC:
Not sure about the point of a 6 month delay between theory and practical tests.
It seems to bare zero indications of a person’s maturity or capability to drive.
If you are concerned about standards of those passing their test, perhaps the test is the problem and not the gap between theory and practical tests.
‘Back in the day’ when you could get a test within 2-3 weeks of booking, I’m pretty sure I booked my practical the day I passed their theory but I didn’t book that until I was pretty much ready to go.
If there a concerns about minimum driving hours before someone takes their test, then mandate that.
If they are concerned a person is 17 years old and 1 day, then change that.
They seem to have come up with something which doesn’t really address any of the real issues.
As for the lower drink drive limits, massive thumbs up from me, it’s about time. We should be near zero tolerance because it’s obvious almost any level starts to impair your cognitive functions.
mods - perhaps this thread needs a rename to ‘driving licensing changes’ or something like that.
Curtesy of the BBC:
Not sure about the point of a 6 month delay between theory and practical tests.
It seems to bare zero indications of a person’s maturity or capability to drive.
If you are concerned about standards of those passing their test, perhaps the test is the problem and not the gap between theory and practical tests.
‘Back in the day’ when you could get a test within 2-3 weeks of booking, I’m pretty sure I booked my practical the day I passed their theory but I didn’t book that until I was pretty much ready to go.
If there a concerns about minimum driving hours before someone takes their test, then mandate that.
If they are concerned a person is 17 years old and 1 day, then change that.
They seem to have come up with something which doesn’t really address any of the real issues.
As for the lower drink drive limits, massive thumbs up from me, it’s about time. We should be near zero tolerance because it’s obvious almost any level starts to impair your cognitive functions.
mods - perhaps this thread needs a rename to ‘driving licensing changes’ or something like that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,872
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I watch every episode of Traffic Cops and Motorway Cops etc and the one thing that pee's me off is somebody leading the Police on a chase and when they catch them they have no license, MOT, Insurance etc.
All they get is another driving ban and a bit of a fine when they already haven't got a license.
They need to be thrown inside.
Kneecapped more like
However anyone over 70 can, which is what this thread is about.
In point of fact I feel more should be done about the disproportionate amount of serious injuries and deaths caused by the 17 to 24 year group as it is 4 times the over 25's. I doubt very much of these are due to poor eyesight.
Last edited:
Inexperience. Only way to get rid of it is to drive more. Older drivers should know better.
This. I sometimes think older people forget that they were young once
There were discussions of them looking at graduated licences which would include not allowing new drivers to drive at night for a period of time.... Not sure how they would expect such a driver to hold down a job when its dark between 4pm and 8am up here in the Winter
Last edited:
( like r4 said in news broadcasts the 6 month gap between theory and test means people would, now, not be able to pass until 17+1/2 years old,
another take on bbc was inadequacy of public transport and its free availability to older people so they could give up a license when they know they should.)
Guess the car insurance companies, independently, could demand everyone provides a recent eye test
another take on bbc was inadequacy of public transport and its free availability to older people so they could give up a license when they know they should.)
Guess the car insurance companies, independently, could demand everyone provides a recent eye test
That's what need to change. Opticians should have no choice in the matter. If someone had below standards eyesight then they should have to report it.
My question to your optician would be: "If you found a driver to be below the threshold but decided not to report it, how would you feel then if a few weeks later that driver failed to see your loved one and killed them?"
I'm sorry if I'm coming over a bit hard-line but having almost lost one of my best mates to an elderly driver, when I was younger, an elderly driver that 3 weeks prior had declared she was fully fit and able to drive but then turned out that she couldn't see more than 3 metres in front of her, I feel extremely strong about it.
But that's the thing, if they didn't go and get tested then their licence would be suspended. They'd get banned for 'driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence'
Right, make it a requirement to renew the licence rather than making it mandatory for Opticians to report.
Might aswell get Dr's to report a person with sleep apnea too. Oh wait, that goes against Dr patient confidence.
Lets not open that can of worms eh
Ideologically I'm very against broad sweeping rules/changes which unduly burden the [mostly] law abiding/innocent, largely ignored/of lesser consequence to those who aren't innocent and often in reaction to a tiny number of problem people. It is not the mark of an intelligent society.
Though there is a balance to it - not an unusual story which happens elsewhere as well but there is a dual-carriageway leaving the town I grew up in that was notorious - when I was growing up every year without fail over the summer there would be one or more of a usually single vehicle incident involving a young person who'd passed their test a few weeks before leaving the road at silly speeds like 140MPH killing or seriously injuring the occupants of the car which was often a bunch of teenagers. Fortunately that was somewhat, but not entirely, fixed by changes to the road layout.
Personally, and as 1-2 posters have alluded to data on, I don't think changing the limit will make much difference unless you are routinely testing people. Harsher penalties would probably have a little more effect as a deterrent but that only goes so far if people are flouting the rules already - but it might motivate some to make alternative transport arrangements if they are going to drink rather than chance it. Personally I'd have much harsher penalties public name and shame style, etc. for people caught drink driving but that is another story.
Though there is a balance to it - not an unusual story which happens elsewhere as well but there is a dual-carriageway leaving the town I grew up in that was notorious - when I was growing up every year without fail over the summer there would be one or more of a usually single vehicle incident involving a young person who'd passed their test a few weeks before leaving the road at silly speeds like 140MPH killing or seriously injuring the occupants of the car which was often a bunch of teenagers. Fortunately that was somewhat, but not entirely, fixed by changes to the road layout.
Personally, and as 1-2 posters have alluded to data on, I don't think changing the limit will make much difference unless you are routinely testing people. Harsher penalties would probably have a little more effect as a deterrent but that only goes so far if people are flouting the rules already - but it might motivate some to make alternative transport arrangements if they are going to drink rather than chance it. Personally I'd have much harsher penalties public name and shame style, etc. for people caught drink driving but that is another story.
I have mine tested every two years but there has never been a specific test for driving, just the ability to read a umber plate from so many yards.
Free NHS eye tests and optical vouchers
Find out if you're entitled to a free NHS sight test or an optical voucher to help reduce the cost of glasses or contact lenses.www.nhs.uk
Time to trot out my driving/eyesight test anecdote.
Examiner asks me to read the number plate of the white car on the opposite side of the road. I think **** and I'm squinting and calling out what I think it says, as the examiner looks somewhat baffled. Then he realises what's happened and says "Not that car, this one" pointing to a car that is literally just a few yards away from us, rather than the other white car parked at the far end of the road that I had assumed he must have meant.
When I was taking my test there was 3 of us about to go out and they had us line up at the edge of the car park asking us to read the number plate of a car parked at the bottom of the hill over 100m away - I just looked at my examiner with raised eyebrows but the other two were taking it seriously, the examiners were in stitches.
Evidence from Scotland shows no reduction in RTAs due to dropping the limit. Because, yes, alcohol does lower capability even at legal levels but you get equal or higher impacts from things like being tired, having a child in the car, having a cold, using a hands-free phone, and so on as well as things that are illegal but not meaningfully enforced such as holding a phone or failing to ensure the vehicle is in proper condition.