GEM Motoring Assist is using World Glaucoma Week to urge the Government to review the current arrangements for vision tests for driving.
Currently, as part of the UK’s driving test, motorists are required to read a licence plate from 20 metres away, but the Government is looking to relax this law to just 17.5 metres, says GEM.
With an estimated four million UK motorists failing to meet minimum eyesight requirements for driving, GEM is calling for support to encourage stricter rules for driving vision tests and more regular compulsory eye tests for licence holders.
David Williams MBE, CEO of GEM Motoring Assist, said: “Poor vision is a significant factor when it comes to road safety and it is very worrying that the Government is even contemplating relaxing the vision test.
“In fact, we believe the test should be much more stringent and there should be rules in place to ensure motorists have their eyes tested professionally, on a more frequent basis.
“With more frequent, obligatory eye tests for motorists there is a higher chance of catching problems, such as glaucoma, at a much earlier stage. Not only that, but we know that taking these steps would help reduce the number of accidents caused by poor vision.
“The vision test before the practical driving test is relatively undemanding, with only 2,000 people failing each year, and with evidence showing that many motorists are taking unnecessary risks with their eyesight on the roads we are urging the Government not to relax the rules but make them tougher.”
For more information contact Katie Murphy or Kim Lusher on 08453 700 771 / 773.
Anyone who works with visual display equipment is entitled to a free eye test every two years through their employer. I reckon that must cover a fair % of the population these days and employers must have budgeted for it so the actual ‘cost’ to society should be minimal for a 5 year eye testing program for drivers.
Dave, Leeds
0
Other issues aside, what I find stunning here is that 2,000 people a year fail the eyesight part of their driving test. How on earth did they ‘learn’ with defective eyesight, and not have it noticed?
David, Suffolk
0
It is not going to help if an optician is bound by law to report someone whose eyesight is below par, it will only help if they have not purchased corrective lenses. Also I often have my eyes tested by one optician yet purchase my lenses from another. If anyone is to administer this change, I suggest it is lead by the insurance companies.
Jim Mennie, Aberdeen
0
Is it reasonable that drivers should demonstrate a reasonable standard of eyesight? Yes. Does the current standard provide an acceptable measure? No, and frankly lowering the bar from 20m to 17.5 probably won’t make a “blind” bit of difference. But it seems to me there is a massive public health issue here of which safe driving is only part. Why do people not have their sight checked regularly? Cost? Nuisance? Pride? Glasses are cheaper, more accessible and fashionable than ever before. Perhaps this is where we work with the public health authorities to raise the importance of eyesight testing and correction.
Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
0
Road Safety Professionals are not being selective about which Stats 19 evidence they use or not and I take exception to your accusing us of doing so.
I and my colleagues have said that the evidence base from Stats 19 is narrow, based on a single distance reading task and is not consistently collected by police officers – who are the first to agree. Many collisions are not attended by specialist roads policing officers, so the level of expertise and experience of the officer completing the form varies greatly. Levels of supervision for this data collection also varies enormously. I know this because police officers have told me it is so. Therefore, rather than rejecting the proposal based on inadequate data or spending up to £40m on eyesight tests, a modest, specific research project would tell us whether this would be beneficial and, if so, what form the tests should take.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
It is difficult to understand that a learner’s eyesight is only checked immediately prior to their practical test by the examiner. Surely this test is of little benefit? New driver’s eyesight should be checked before they obtain a provisional licence so that any deficencies can be diagnosed and corrected before they ever sit behind the wheel.
Tom Harrington
0
To prevent collisions in the future we first need to know why they occurred in the past and the best evidence we have is from the Police accident investigations. There are also in depth studies of smaller samples (OTS) which largely seem to corroborate STATS19 (although the reports I’ve read do not display the actual results). STATS19 are also consistent over different Police forces, over different years and with other data available.
I see every reason to trust the integrity and skill of these officers. The only major problem is that they do not reliably record the numbers of non-fatal collisions (as established by the BMA and Transport Select Committee).
I do find that RSPs seem keen to promote STATS19 when it suits their cause, but then argue that they are unreliable when the results don’t support their policies.
If eye sight tests really could help to reduce “Failed to look properly” collisions, then there is huge potential to improve road safety but the best evidence we have suggests this is a blind alley (sorry!). Would better evidence get a different enough result to warrant a cost to society of around £40m?
Dave Finney – Slough
0
The stats 19 data collected by police officers (many of them not specialist traffic officers) is mainly a tick box form. If there is an obviously appropriate box, it may be ticked and if not, then that data is not captured. I think Dave is very optimistic about there being a uniformly excellent quality of data put into these forms by police officers following a collision – after they’ve done all their other tasks, dealt with the situation, property and human concerns. The stats 19 form is long and not always the most popular or urgent task that the officer still has to do. This is especially true of those that involve slight or less serious injuries.
Police officers are not optometrists. They can only undertake a basic distance vision test at the roadside. The eyesight of drivers/riders is rarely if ever tested following a collision.
We need the research.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
The Police do not get the credit they deserve for their excellent work gathering evidence of why accidents happen.
Research in simulators can give indications of risk but they do not and really cannot replicate all the side effects in the real world. Short of widespread use of in-car cameras for investigators to study, the Police give us the best information it is possible to get direct from the scene of the crash.
The Police results do at first seem unbelievable, but they are consistent with safety trends and the real effects of interventions. The problem seems to be that they don’t support what many in road safety implement, or would wish to implement.
Dave, the evidence I present is “Uncorrected, defective eyesight” is a factor in 0.2% fatal or serious collisions”. Is there evidence to believe otherwise?
Dave Finney – Slough
0
You can’t test the eyesight of a dead road traffic collision casualty so we can’t know if their level of vision contributed to their demise. We also don’t know how ‘failed to look properly’ is connected to ‘couldn’t see properly’. Dave’s assumption that failing to look is almost exclusively linked to people with good eyesight is wildy misleading (unless he has evidence to back this up?) and there many potential causes for people failing to look including not bothering to look, looking but not seeing and seeing but not processing what they see as well as processing correctly but making a poor judgement (I know that’s also a contributary factor but I wonder how many people say ‘I didn’t see them’ when in fact they did see them but just thought they’d make it anyway…)
As for cost benefit, a regular eye exam can pick up various medical issues before they become apparent in other and more serious ways which means savings on NHS treatment not to mention savings in terms of road casualty costs.
Dave, Leeds
0
We cannot say that these eyesight tests will or won’t prevent a significant number of collisions because the research to demonstrate what would be the most effective type of eye test for drivers and the follow up analysis of before and after test data has not been undertaken. What is needed is a research project and pilot scheme to answer these questions.
The current test does not check peripheral vision nor fields of vision, it is only one simple, stationary distance reading test. Nor does the collision and casualty data answer this question – we simply do not know.
Research please?
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
The contributory factors data are based on police data so account for injury collisions only and it may be that many of these, even where eyesight has been tested by a police officer, do have a vision factor that may have affected a road user’s judgement. What about damage only collisions, or near missses that may have an eyesight causation factor? The often quoted DfT statistics are only frequency counts that give some idea of trends but do not explain problems that exist on our roads.
Dr James Whalen, Wolverhampton
0
Eyesight tests will make almost no difference to the number of ‘I didn’t see them’ accidents.
“Failed to look properly”, the largest contributory factor in fatal or serious collisions at 29.1%, is almost exclusively by people with good eyesight, but where the brain has failed to register all other road users.
“Uncorrected, defective eyesight” is a factor in 0.2% fatal or serious collisions.
Mandatory eye-tests would cost society £millions yet produce very little road safety benefit. We really do need to start performing proper cost/benefit analyses.
Dave Finney – Slough
0
How reading a numberplate across a car park constitutes a proper eyesight test I have no idea. Drivers should be required to have a full eye exam before their driving test and every 5 years after. Opticians should be required to inform the DVLA if someone’s eyesight is below standard. An eye test is only £15 and ‘I didn’t see them’ is no excuse.
Dave, Leeds
0