Are Compulsory Eyesight Tests the next logical step?

mydiscworld

Leo Varadkar has ordered a national audit of road speeds, discussed here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056543137

This got me thinking of what other steps could be taken to keep further reducing road deaths, which were under 200 last year for the first time since records began.

Personally, I think compulsory eyesight tests every 5 years would be one way.

I reckon we all know someone who should be wearing glasses/lenses when driving but doesn't for various reasons.

Some know they have poor eyesight; others never had glasses but never to get a checkup, despite their eyesight gradually declining through natural myopia.

clappyhappy

The company that my husband works for has made it compulsory for all staff with company cars or driving vans/trucks to get their eyes tested. Husband (who has had glasses since teenager) was due a new car this year and he couldn't receive it till he had eye test done. I think they are right,they also get driving lessons every few years. If it helps reduce accidents then it should be considered.

seamus

Mandatory eye test to renew your licence should be sufficient.

Here's one for bueracracy though:
The mother-in-law is painfully conscientious socially. When she got her driving licence fado, fado, she had normal sight. But she's approaching retirement age now and has been wearing glasses for reading for quite some time and has also started wearing them for driving.

So when she went to renew her licence she ticked the "Yes I need glasses for driving" box on the form. Rejected; "If you want to have this added to your licence, you need to provide an eye test".

Makes no sense at all.

antoobrien

mydiscworld wrote: »

Personally, I think compulsory eyesight tests every 5 years would be one way.

For who? If we're just talking about motorists this isn't really good enough - there are plenty of cyclists and pedestrains that put themselves and others in danger in the same fashion.

seamus

antoobrien wrote: »

For who? If we're just talking about motorists this isn't really good enough - there are plenty of cyclists and pedestrains that put themselves and others in danger in the same fashion.

Those pesky pedestrians, always walking into things. Carnage and bloodshed they're causing!

I love how "why us and not everyone" is the stock response from the defensive motorist. Why you? Because you're driving hundreds of kilos of metal at 50km/h. The same reason why motorists need to tested and licenced.

Cedrus

Sight testing should be a normal part of a licence renewal, the current tick the box self certification is a farce. Maybe anyone involved in an accident who ticked the box incorrectly should be prosecuted?

According to my licence I am required to wear corrective lenses when I drive a car but not when I ride a motorbike!!

Ongoing driver education is another obvious one, It's years if not decades since many drivers had any training and many have adapted and invented their styles of driving on an independent basis. Road and traffic conditions have changed, motorways have been built and traffic lights introduced to country villages.

Some insurance companies offer discounts to those who undertake supplementary driving lessons but this seems to be mostly aimed at younger drivers. This should be encouraged for older drivers as well.
There is also a case for requiring those guilty of driving offences to undertake training perhaps in lieu of points or fines and certainly should be obligatory for anyone seeking restoration of their licence following a ban.

SeanW

seamus wrote: »

I love how "why us and not everyone" is the stock response from the defensive motorist. Why you? Because you're driving hundreds of kilos of metal at 50km/h. The same reason why motorists need to tested and licenced.

Yes, motorists are already regulated far more than cyclists etc. (Taxed as well, govt seems to think the motorist is a never ending fountain of moeny, but that's off topic). And I have no problem with that, within reason.

However it seems to me that - on this board at least - it's usually militant cyclists and eco-lefty types (cyclopath2001, galwaycyclists, Iwannahurl etc) are the ones CONSTANTLY demanding more and more regulations and sanctions against motorists. GPS based speed monitors attached to cars, instant disqualification for a single speeding "offense" (even if that is racing down an HQDC above its mislabelled speed of 50kph). Even changing housing estate design to make them hostile to the car-owning residents, nothing is ever enough for these clowns.

It is at that point that I think it's right to ask "why us and not everyone?"
especially cyclists since they seem to be the ones with these hyper-aggressive viewpoints. And considering that cyclists - possibly the same ones going on about evil scumbag motorists - have as much of a proclivity for lawbreaking, (e.g. treating red lights as "yield" signs, at best) if not more, than motorists.

seamus

Your own personal prejudices about cyclists have no real bearing on what's being discussed here unfortunately. The primary cause of road deaths in this country is motorists colliding with things, therefore that needs to be tackled.

Poor vision is something which a lot of people manage to live with, without even realising they have an issue. It progresses slowly and you get used to it over time such that a small abberation (say -1 or -1.5) is not noticeable until someone shows you what you should be able to see.

Poor eyesight is amplified during poor light conditions, so it stand to reason that a proportion of road deaths can be attriuted (at least in part) to an inability to see at night or during dawn and dusk. These three time periods make up the bulk of road fatalities.

I fail to see what mandatory eye testing of cyclists and pedestrians would achieve in reality, and there's no practical way of doing it.

However, there are clear benefits to be gained from requiring a ten-yearly eye test for motorists, and it's easily enforced.

Apples and oranges.

mydiscworld

seamus wrote: »

Poor eyesight is amplified during poor light conditions, so it stand to reason that a proportion of road deaths can be attriuted (at least in part) to an inability to see at night or during dawn and dusk. These three time periods make up the bulk of road fatalities.

I'd be interested in seeing if the Gardaí have such stats on times of road collisions and deaths. It would make it easier to bring in such mandatory testing.

SeanW

seamus wrote: »

Your own personal prejudices about cyclists have no real bearing on what's being discussed here unfortunately.

I have no problem with cyclists in general. Its the militant car-hating whackjobs on here like cyclopath2001, IWH etc that I have a problem with. I wrote that only in response to your generalisations about motorists.

I love how "why us and not everyone" is the stock response from the defensive motorist.

As my post stated, there are plenty of times when "why just us?" is a perfectly valid response.

antoobrien

seamus wrote: »

Those pesky pedestrians, always walking into things. Carnage and bloodshed they're causing!

I love how "why us and not everyone" is the stock response from the defensive motorist. Why you? Because you're driving hundreds of kilos of metal at 50km/h. The same reason why motorists need to tested and licenced.

Sorry for you but I'm a cyclist that wore glasses & contacts before getting laser surgery, so I know what I'm on about.

I know several people that need glasses to see more than 50 feet but still cycle. They're putting their own lives in danger every time they walk or cycle.

Now what happens if they (cyclist/pedestrian) do something in front of a car they can't see: if the car has reaction time (this isn't a given even at 50km/h) it swerves. If the car has to swerve into oncoming traffic, which is likely in the case of a pedestrian or cyclist, it turns a one vehicle accident into a potential multi-vehicle accident. This will greatly increase the chances of serious injury or death.

But hey, pedestrians and cyclist can't be held responsible for doing stupid stuff on the roads if there's a motorist around.

seamus

antoobrien wrote: »

Now what happens if they (cyclist/pedestrian) do something in front of a car they can't see: if the car has reaction time (this isn't a given even at 50km/h) it swerves. If the car has to swerve into oncoming traffic, which is likely in the case of a pedestrian or cyclist, it turns a one vehicle accident into a potential multi-vehicle accident. This will greatly increase the chances of serious injury or death.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm blind as a bat and I know people with eyesight as bad as mine but who continued to drive articulated trucks into their 60's without glasses because their original licence never required it.

The question is, how many serious accidents are cyclists/pedestrians getting into on a yearly basis that are the fault of the cyclist/pedestrian? Is eyesight a major factor in their accidents?
You could ask the same of motorists and the answer would be "we don't know", but considering that cars travel much faster, thereby requiring far greater visual acuity and motor function, it stands to reason that having more stringent eyesight requirements will improve safety.

It's the scale of the danger that's important. Otherwise you may as well say that it should be illegal to walk around the streets when you're over the limit. Pedestrians and cyclists pose less of a danger than motorists. It's that simple.

Why are you guys accepting of the fact that you need an eyesight test when you first apply for a licence, but when it's suggested for renewals you think it's a horrible idea? Surely it's just good sense? Almost every person's eyesight deteriorates over time.

antoobrien

seamus wrote: »

Why are you guys accepting of the fact that you need an eyesight test when you first apply for a licence, but when it's suggested for renewals you think it's a horrible idea? Surely it's just good sense? Almost every person's eyesight deteriorates over time.

I'm on my first license, so I haven't had to renew yet, but I'd have assumed it is mandatory for the renewal for the reasons outlined.

Personally I don't think that renewal should be the rubber stamping exercise that it is as it stands. I believe that everyone should be made reset the test every 5-10 years.

I also believe that cyclists should be made do some form of road safety certification. The kind of stuff I've seen cyclists doing around Galway & Dublin beggars belief, so I'm surprised that I haven't witnessed a serious or fatal crash involving a cyclist (for the record I've been knocked off the bike by cars twice in Galway).

Niles

antoobrien wrote: »

I also believe that cyclists should be made do some form of road safety certification. The kind of stuff I've seen cyclists doing around Galway & Dublin beggars belief, so I'm surprised that I haven't witnessed a serious or fatal crash involving a cyclist (for the record I've been knocked off the bike by cars twice in Galway).

But would it be practical to enforce? I mean even small kids have bikes, it seems like to big a thing to regulate.

I'm not saying you're wrong; there are plenty of bad cyclists out there who give the rest of us a bad name. Many times I've been nearly knocked down by one breaking a red light in Dublin city centre.

Victor

mydiscworld wrote: »

I reckon we all know someone who should be wearing glasses/lenses when driving but doesn't for various reasons.

A work colleague was meant to wear glasses for driving. Getting a lift home one evening, she freaked out when, as we got closer to it, she saw that the white car in front of her had yellow stripes and blue lights on top.

It was a coast guard vehicle.

antoobrien

Niles wrote: »

But would it be practical to enforce? I mean even small kids have bikes, it seems like to big a thing to regulate.

Considering 22% pf cyclist deaths are of children of 16 and under it's something we can't really ignore any longer.

Sponge Bob

seamus wrote: »

So when she went to renew her licence she ticked the "Yes I need glasses for driving" box on the form. Rejected; "If you want to have this added to your licence, you need to provide an eye test".

Makes no sense at all.

Nope, nabbing the ones who should have ticked it would be the way to go.

SeanW

seamus wrote: »

I love how "why us and not everyone" is the stock response from the defensive motorist.

I also have to wonder why you're hearing "why us and not everyone?" so frequently from "defensive" motorists, that it's become (according to you) a "stock answer?"

Is it because whenever you talk to motorists, you immediately go on the offensive?

seamus

SeanW wrote: »

Is it because whenever you talk to motorists, you immediately go on the offensive?

Considering how difficult it would be to go on the offensive against myself, no. There seems to be core of people who think it's unfair that there are restrictions on some road users and not on others without even considering that there might be some logic behind it.

Considering 22% pf cyclist deaths are of children of 16 and under it's something we can't really ignore any longer.

You can use facts to prove anything.

Considering that just 9 cyclists died last year, you're going to need more than a blind statistic to justify why cyclists need to be regulated.

ardmacha

Considering that just 9 cyclists died last year, you're going to need more than a blind statistic to justify why cyclists need to be regulated.

While there may not be a case for further regulation, there is a strong case for actual enforcement of existing regulations against cyclists loutish behaviour.

seamus

ardmacha wrote: »

While there may not be a case for further regulation, there is a strong case for actual enforcement of existing regulations against cyclists loutish behaviour.

No disagreement here at all.

BluntGuy

I had a look through this topic, and I'd like to issue a reminder that personal insults aren't acceptable.

SeanW wrote: »

I have no problem with cyclists in general. Its the militant car-hating whackjobs on here like cyclopath2001, IWH etc that I have a problem with. I wrote that only in response to your generalisations about motorists.

Whatever you think about their views, "attack the post, not the poster" is the maxim to which I would strongly recommend you adhere.

Thanks.