Over-70s face driving ban for failing eye tests

[SexyGreyFox]

Wow you don't look a day over 50

I do get that a lot.
A new Diabetic Nurse said to me yesterday 'According to these records it says you are 67, have you made a pact with the Devil?'
I always reply 'I've never smoked, alcohol is very rare, I've never taken illegal drugs and never sunbathed but most people think I've wasted my life'

 

[OspreyO]

Cycling probably helped.

 

[ICDP]

Its a tiny number of older drivers VS a vast number of younger drivers. One estimate was a almost a million drivers.

Short-sighted driver who killed a dog-walker on a pedestrian crossing when he wasn’t wearing his glasses gets just 140 hours' COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mohammed Rashid, 23, drove into journalist Laurence Gunn, 32, pictured, as he crossed a road near Hampstead Heath, north London, with his dog.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Like I said test away. But it will have negligible effect on road safety. I know the argument will be if it saves one then it's worth it. But that effort on younger drivers would save 10-20 times that many people.

But it's an vote grabber, a political stroke.

They do the same with cycling statistics in the media. It's click bait.

And around we go… conflating different problems that need different solutions.

1. Changing the law to remove the reliance for people to self report serious eye defects that cannot be corrected with glasses. Now the optician must report these serious eye defects to the DVLA and the persons license is revoked.

2. Change in the existing law requiring people over 70 to do renew their driving licence every 3 years to now include a mandatory eye test.

3. Drivers of all ages who refuse to wear glasses while driving despite needing them. This applies to people who have less serious eye defects that can be corrected with glasses/contact lenses.

I am all for tackling ALL of the above problems and 1 and 2 are totally separate to 3. Ironically 3 is already a law and people ignoring that law does not make problem 1 and 2 irrelevant.

You know tackling one problem doesn’t mean the other gets ignored?

Are you saying we should scrap legislation to require people over 70 to do mandatory eye tests when applying for license renewal? That the requirement for opticians to report serious eye impairments (not just old people) to the DVLA is somehow wrong? That the system of self-reporting was perfectly fine?

 

[OspreyO]

You literally quoted me saying test away.

What's being done about the other (larger) problem.

 

[ICDP]

You literally quoted me saying test away.

What's being done about the other (larger) problem.

Well now you at least acknowledge that they are different problems requiring different solutions.

By the way it is already illegal for an individual to drive without correctional lenses if required. The back of your licence has a code 12 section. If it has a 01 beside it that means this driver legally requires correctional lenses to drive.

So how is it more strictly enforced? I think any eye condition (not just serious ones) should be reported to the DVLA. This removes any doubt from the mind of any morons that “my eyes are fine”. I would also make it a legal requirement that any driving license application must include an eye test that is only reported as completed by an actual Optician. In this digital age this would be straight forward to do.

As it is right now that section 12 is taken from your license application form. Basically it asks “do you need glasses” and if you say yes then a 01 is added to eleven section of your license (section 12 restrictions). This is similar to dear old Norris/Dorris deciding not to “self report” their cataract problem to the DVLA.

 

[OspreyO]

That's conceding that younger people is the bigger issue and they are doing nothing about it.

Also "This is similar" = its the same issue.

I only looked it up because the numbers didn't make sense. A few older people vs lots of young people. Also the reporting has common disinformation tactic. Talking about one thing while giving the statistics for something else. Another tactic is lumping say cycling with motorcycling to make cycling look worse than it is.

When you look it up, Some people forces do run a short campaign of roadside eye tests for all drivers. Because they know its an issue for all drivers. I've never seen one in my lifetime.

 

[Hagar]

And around we go… conflating different problems that need different solutions.

1. Changing the law to remove the reliance for people to self report serious eye defects that cannot be corrected with glasses. Now the optician must report these serious eye defects to the DVLA and the persons license is revoked.

2. Change in the existing law requiring people over 70 to do renew their driving licence every 3 years to now include a mandatory eye test.

I am assuming that my voluntary two yearly eye testing will comply with 2. Otherwise there will be a gross duplication of work at the opticians.

 

[OspreyO]

I am assuming that my voluntary two yearly eye testing will comply with 2. Otherwise there will be a gross duplication of work at the opticians.

Probably won't. It will probably have to dated at the time of renewal application. Within x months or such.

 

[Werewolf]

Probably won't. It will probably have to dated at the time of renewal application. Within x months or such.

If within X months then people will likely do exactly what they tend to do with the car service and MOT, get their eyes tested before the licence renewal.

The way it works at the moment is that if you are on a short licence because of your eyes it's a usually 3 yearly renewal, and as part of that the DVLA will have you go to a specific optician of their choice in your area to get a test done (IIRC they tell you to go a few weeks before it's renewal time).
If anything having it done with mandatory reporting routinely is likely to save on opticians appointments and costs, as your normal optician could send off the information via a standardised form on their computer*. The DVLA could then decide if your eyes are bad enough they need you to have a specialist test or just issue your licence as normal.

It really won't be a big thing in terms of extra work, and is likely to save a number of lives and many people's eyesight (there are many conditions where people won't go until the damage is permanent).


*The likes of specsavers and boots already have almost entirely electronic records and ordering of glasses, so having a simplified copy of the information sent on shouldn't be a major exercise in software updates. It could even trigger automatically if the optician is noting you've got specific conditions, or the prescription falls a certain amount outside the normal range or requires specialist lenses.

 

[OspreyO]

"...The way it works at the moment is that if you are on a short licence because of your eyes it's a usually 3 yearly renewal..."

Are you referring to over 70 renewal or something solely to do with eyes regardless of age?

"...and is likely to save a number of lives.."

What % of total road deaths are due to eyesight.

 

[ICDP]

That's conceding that younger people is the bigger issue and they are doing nothing about it.

Also "This is similar" = its the same issue.

I only looked it up because the numbers didn't make sense. A few older people vs lots of young people. Also the reporting has common disinformation tactic. Talking about one thing while giving the statistics for something else. Another tactic is lumping say cycling with motorcycling to make cycling look worse than it is.

When you look it up, Some people forces do run a short campaign of roadside eye tests for all drivers. Because they know its an issue for all drivers. I've never seen one in my lifetime.

lol, this is similar does not mean “these are the same”. You just lost your entire argument with that ridiculous statement.

It’s like saying lettuce is the same as steak because they are both food.

 

[Hagar]

*The likes of specsavers and boots already have almost entirely electronic records and ordering of glasses, so having a simplified copy of the information sent on shouldn't be a major exercise in software updates. It could even trigger automatically if the optician is noting you've got specific conditions, or the prescription falls a certain amount outside the normal range or requires specialist lenses.

Specsavers are top of the class enabling me a Sunday afternoon referral to a hospital ophthalmologist for a suspected aneurism avoiding A+ E. Can not be faulted IMO. That led to an eventual cataract removal in one eye, the other having been done previously and hugely better eyesight. I have a long history of eyesight checks with specsavers and for them to liaise with the license authorities would be a good outcome.

 

[Werewolf]

"...The way it works at the moment is that if you are on a short licence because of your eyes it's a usually 3 yearly renewal..."

Are you referring to over 70 renewal or something solely to do with eyes regardless of age?

"...and is likely to save a number of lives.."

What % of total road deaths are due to eyesight.

Anyone who has been responsible and done the legally required thing and reported serious eyesight problems to the DVLA in accordance with the law.
My father was on short licences from about 45 until he voluntarily stopped driving at about 60. He then stopped using even a mobility scooter at about 70.

Several thousand people a year are injured due to poor eyesight in drivers (apparently nearly 900k drivers would likely fail a road side test), and god only knows how many accidents where it's damage only. I know one of my neighbours was a rolling disaster before he gave up driving, he justified driving whilst barely being able to see as "I'm only going locally, I'm not going fast and I need to drive to the doctors" (IIRC he hit the fence and the rocks on his own drive multiple times in the space of a few months, and was following a sub 20mph limit before it was fashionable).
IIRC it's something like 5-10 lives, so around 0.5-0.8% which may not sound like a huge percentage but for something that is very easily dealt with by simply enforcing the existing law in a simple manner that's quite a lot.

Specsavers are top of the class enabling me a Sunday afternoon referral to a hospital ophthalmologist for a suspected aneurism avoiding A+ E. Can not be faulted IMO. That led to an eventual cataract removal in one eye, the other having been done previously and hugely better eyesight. I have a long history of eyesight checks with specsavers and for them to liaise with the license authorities would be a good outcome.

Yup
They did something similar with my dad, he was having a problem and knowing he couldn't just turn up at the local hospitals eye clinic (where he was about 2 years overdue for a 6 month check because of delays at their end), he booked a test, he was in the local specsavers for about 2 hours as they redid the tests about 3 times with it escalating through the opticians working, the result was they contacted the hospital and he was over there within a couple of days from memory for the consultant's team to look at it (and came out about 45 minutes later having had some sort of laser procedure as they were quiet and the equipment was available).

 

[OspreyO]

That's yet another example that it's not just the 70+ that need to be brought into this, and enforced road side. Almost a million drivers would fail a roadside test. I made the point earlier than the numbers it will save is a tiny % of the 1600+ annual figures. There's also other accidents and injuries to consider.

I think some other countries have wider range of age eyesight testing. I couldn't find any detail on it.

Modern safety tech is going to have a big impact on vision related accidents. As the nation fleet gets updated.

 

[ICDP]

That's yet another example that it's not just the 70+ that need to be brought into this, and enforced road side. Almost a million drivers would fail a roadside test. I made the point earlier than the numbers it will save is a tiny % of the 1600+ annual figures. There's also other accidents and injuries to consider.

I think some other countries have wider range of age eyesight testing. I couldn't find any detail on it.

Modern safety tech is going to have a big impact on vision related accidents. As the nation fleet gets updated.

But it isn’t the 70 plus that this exclusively applies to. The requirement to report serious eye defects (regardless of age) has shifted from the driver doing it voluntarily, to the optician having to do it legally.

The issue you seem to have (as per this thread topic) is the legal requirement for 70 plus year olds to now have to complete a mandatory eye test when renewing their licence.

Both of these are separate issues, yet you keep conflating them.

 

[OspreyO]

No that's a false narrative. I've welcomed tests the whole thread. For the nth time, test everyone and often and all reported automatically to the DVLA.

My issues is the inference that's it's mostly older people with vision issues and the inference that they are over represented in the stats. Whereas in reality it's younger drivers who are over represented in all the stats. Older People are actually under represented. Mainly because there just aren't that many of them driving.

The media are always at this misrepresentation of stats for click bait. People need to critically analyse what they read in the media. Not just accept it at face value then grab a pitch fork and torch.

 

[ICDP]

That’s not my narrative, that’s just facts.

Your problem is your narrative is not implied in the original BBC article at all. It was incredibly balanced in fact outlining that the majority of road accidents are caused by younger drivers.

"When you look at road deaths the big peaks are with young, new drivers and then older drivers - although older drivers it does tend to be those over 80 and 85," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Quoting statistics from road safety charity Brake, external, Mr King added that "one in five young drivers crash in their first year" and over "1,500 young drivers are killed or are seriously injured each year".

So your false narrative is that older people are being targeted by the media unfairly?

 

[jpaul]

the bbc article is not the messiah - think a bit more widely.

the straw-man that percentage of poor eyesight in over 70s drivers and sub-70 could be the same hasn't been refuted,
no conflation, just do a pareto/cost impact of each of the problems with older/younger drivers eyesight and fix/address the most important.

 

[OspreyO]

I didn't say "the media" target older people. I'm staying THIS article is inferring a disproportionate representation. I'm sure the others all do the similar thing.

These is no mention of accidents caused by younger drivers due to vision. There is no mention of the actual number of deaths due to poor vision, there is no mention of how few people are driving at 80+.

If they said 0.5% of accidents are caused by poor vision and only 4% of people over 80 drive. It would look ridiculous.

If they said theres a million people driving who wouldn't pass the eyesight test and the respective % ages of that million drivers it would be an utterly different message. In fact they should have done that instead of cherry picking one group not based on eyesight but solely on age.

If they had some stats on all age groups and which is most likely (adhere to the law) to wear their legally required glasses or contacts, its older drivers.

You'd have to be blind not to see how this is being presented out of context for clicks.

And yes test older drivers no one's saying not to.

 

[Mr Badger]

I didn't say "the media" target older people. I'm staying THIS article is inferring a disproportionate representation. I'm sure the others all do the similar thing.

These is no mention of accidents caused by younger drivers due to vision. There is no mention of the actual number of deaths due to poor vision, there is no mention of how few people are driving at 80+.

If they said 0.5% of accidents are caused by poor vision and only 4% of people over 80 drive. It would look ridiculous.

If they said theres a million people driving who wouldn't pass the eyesight test and the respective % ages of that million drivers it would be an utterly different message. In fact they should have done that instead of cherry picking one group not based on eyesight but solely on age.

If they had some stats on all age groups and which is most likely (adhere to the law) to wear their legally required glasses or contacts, its older drivers.

You'd have to be blind not to see how this is being presented out of context for clicks.

And yes test older drivers no one's saying not to.

Why are you so riled up about this? No one is denying that young drivers have accidents. But although young drivers can improve with experience, it is a fact that overall your vision gets worse as you age and that driving with poor/uncorrected vision is dangerous. Got an eye condition that makes it dangerous to drive? You go on the list. Need glasses for distance but refuse to get them? You go on the list.

Arguing about percentages is no comfort to the relatives of someone killed by an OAP who refused to get an eye test, or carried on driving despite being told not to by their optician.