My doctor did my eye test with and without my glasses. He said my eyes without glasses were acceptable for the test purposes and said that he wouldn’t mark the form as requiring glasses. He said that then if I forgot or broke them a police officer wouldn’t pull me if I wasn’t wearing glasses. That was eight years ago. So they know already if you should have some on
Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
Good idea,I say.
If you can’t see,get some glasses or get off the road.
Drempels:
I agree with that in principle, it’s the creeping shift from presumed innocence that concerns me.
And the situation could easily develop from being stopped by a Police officer for something he believes you have done to the Documentary Offence of having to prove your innocence. Considering the DVLA’s ludicrous, authoritanian stance on this* a great deal of folk could lose their job whilst having to have an eye test to prove they are fit to drive even though they have already provided evidence on reapplication showing that their vision meets the required standard.
*The DVLA said if a licence has been revoked because a driver has failed the eyesight test, evidence must be provided on reapplication showing that the driver’s vision meets the required standard.
If the evidence provided is acceptable, the agency will require an additional eye test.
commonrail:
Good idea,I say.
If you can’t see,get some glasses or get off the road.
Agreed, years ago my truck was hit on an island by a one eyed driver who admitted that he couldn’t see anything on his left side but daren’t tell his insurers as his premium would go up. Made a mess of the side of his Volvo 240 but the truck was undamaged which pleased him greatly as he was prepared to scrap the car rather than go through his insurers and was worried I might make a claim!.
Pete.
robroy:
Is this the same Police Force…(oh sorry Police Service)
The irony is that since the Police Force became the Police Service the service is lacking and the force is non-existant.
Now whether you lay the blame at the feet of the Police heirarchy or our brainless politicians (of any colour rosette) . . .
RoadsRat:
Every police officer has to have a proper eye test every 2 years to be allowed to drive police vehicles.
Maybe in some force areas - but I drove police vehicles for 25 years and never had to undertake an eye test other than the one during my recruitment medical.
Nite Owl:
Ok, here’s a thought. On your license, isnt there a code that states you wear glasses to drive? 01 I believe. That information is on a data base that police have access to. Surely the anpr system can flag up this code on a person’s vehicle and they simply look to see if the driver is wearing glasses. They’re a bit stumped if the driver has contact lenses of course.There you have it, catching offenders made easy, raising money in the name of road safety.
What if the driver is driving a vehicle that is used by multiple people such as a works pool vehicle or driving a hire vehicle?
ANPR doesn’t link a driver to a particular vehicle.
What’s it got to do with raising money?
Roymondo:
RoadsRat:
Every police officer has to have a proper eye test every 2 years to be allowed to drive police vehicles.Maybe in some force areas - but I drove police vehicles for 25 years and never had to undertake an eye test other than the one during my recruitment medical.
Yet for zb fors drivers got have eye test every 12 months iirc .
Punchy Dan:
Roymondo:
RoadsRat:
Every police officer has to have a proper eye test every 2 years to be allowed to drive police vehicles.Maybe in some force areas - but I drove police vehicles for 25 years and never had to undertake an eye test other than the one during my recruitment medical.
Yet for zb fors drivers got have eye test every 12 months iirc .
Seems you mhrc (might have remembered correctly 
) because this is in the guidance (although I think it’s only meant as an example of what could be done, I am sure someone will have slavishly copy & pasted it into their rules somewhere :-
D7: Driver fitness and health
Requirement: Fleet operators shall be proactive towards managing driver fitness and
health.
Demonstration
□ Operators shall check drivers’ eyesight (such as reading a new style number plate at a
distance of 20 metres) prior to starting work and at least every six months
This is a little off topic but shows the double standards 2 or 3 weeks ago on one of the police shows on tv it showed a copper driving along talking on his phone to his wife before she went to bed, it was hands free but they keep telling us not to use any phone.
mac12:
This is a little off topic but shows the double standards 2 or 3 weeks ago on one of the police shows on tv it showed a copper driving along talking on his phone to his wife before she went to bed, it was hands free but they keep telling us not to use any phone.
Phone or police radio handset?
No different to a truck driver legally using his CB radio or Bluetooth handsfree while driving.
RoadsRat:
mac12:
This is a little off topic but shows the double standards 2 or 3 weeks ago on one of the police shows on tv it showed a copper driving along talking on his phone to his wife before she went to bed, it was hands free but they keep telling us not to use any phone.Phone or police radio handset?
No different to a truck driver legally using his CB radio or Bluetooth handsfree while driving.
If he was using the airwaves to talk to his wife in bed I’d be even less impressed!
I’d also question why she had a tetra handset in her bedroom.
RoadsRat:
Nite Owl:
Ok, here’s a thought. On your license, isnt there a code that states you wear glasses to drive? 01 I believe. That information is on a data base that police have access to. Surely the anpr system can flag up this code on a person’s vehicle and they simply look to see if the driver is wearing glasses. They’re a bit stumped if the driver has contact lenses of course.There you have it, catching offenders made easy, raising money in the name of road safety.
What if the driver is driving a vehicle that is used by multiple people such as a works pool vehicle or driving a hire vehicle?
ANPR doesn’t link a driver to a particular vehicle.
What’s it got to do with raising money?
Dair point, I was thinking more of private vehicles where the anpr shows registered keeper and probable driver. From there it’s not a leap to do a licence check and BOOM instant £100 fine or whatever it is. And coppers didn’t even have to get out of their car.
It’s a non-story.
[/quote]
You would say that,wouldn’t you.
[/quote]
They aren’t going to be setting up roadblocks and testing hundreds of drivers every day.
As I said, non story. If your eyesight is good, there’s nothing to worry about is there?
[/quote]
I will stand to be corrected but I seem to remember that it has always been a police power to make a motorist read a standard number plate at a set distance if so requested at the side of the road?
Drempels:
sammym:
So the police say they will start checking the vision of people driving - presumably at worst inconveniencing you for about 30 seconds if stopped (which has happened twice in a decade), and potentially stopping people who can’t see from driving. And they are getting slated.Yet how many posts on here say the police should do more to curb crap driving? How many people knock them for not doing enough? Seems to me that they can’t win in this situation.
When I was knocked off my push bike and the young girl said she couldn’t see me - I’d have been okay with them checking her site. Why couldn’t she see me on a perfectly clear sunny day? I’m still in pain with my knee. If I’m stopped again I’m more than happy with the police checking my site - and if my vision ever does get bad I’ll make sure I wear my glasses.
I agree with that in principle, it’s the creeping shift from presumed innocence that concerns me.
The specific problem here, is not being addressed. Namely people who look and don’t care what they see, they carry on doing what ever it is they intended to do. That comes under the standard of driving in general.
Stop thinking there is presumed innocence … here is no such thing… I’m sure when a member of the police states, I caught you at 90 in a 70. It I presumed you were innocent . No, you have to prove your innocence.
sammym:
RoadsRat:
mac12:
This is a little off topic but shows the double standards 2 or 3 weeks ago on one of the police shows on tv it showed a copper driving along talking on his phone to his wife before she went to bed, it was hands free but they keep telling us not to use any phone.Phone or police radio handset?
No different to a truck driver legally using his CB radio or Bluetooth handsfree while driving.
If he was using the airwaves to talk to his wife in bed I’d be even less impressed!
I’d also question why she had a tetra handset in her bedroom.
A modern police handset, is both, your able to use the Motorola as a mobile phone or a Radio hand set …
discoman:
Drempels:
sammym:
So the police say they will start checking the vision of people driving - presumably at worst inconveniencing you for about 30 seconds if stopped (which has happened twice in a decade), and potentially stopping people who can’t see from driving. And they are getting slated.Yet how many posts on here say the police should do more to curb crap driving? How many people knock them for not doing enough? Seems to me that they can’t win in this situation.
When I was knocked off my push bike and the young girl said she couldn’t see me - I’d have been okay with them checking her site. Why couldn’t she see me on a perfectly clear sunny day? I’m still in pain with my knee. If I’m stopped again I’m more than happy with the police checking my site - and if my vision ever does get bad I’ll make sure I wear my glasses.
I agree with that in principle, it’s the creeping shift from presumed innocence that concerns me.
The specific problem here, is not being addressed. Namely people who look and don’t care what they see, they carry on doing what ever it is they intended to do. That comes under the standard of driving in general.
Stop thinking there is presumed innocence … here is no such thing… I’m sure when a member of the police states, I caught you at 90 in a 70. It I presumed you were innocent . No, you have to prove your innocence.
WOW…just WOW.
Not your choice flatfoot. You leave it well paid bloke in the funny wig to decide who is guilty or not. Your opinion is not required here.
“To be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of your peers”
Not your Judge Dread " I am the law " small ■■■■■ waving.
Where do you find the code for qearing glasses
discoman:
Drempels:
sammym:
So the police say they will start checking the vision of people driving - presumably at worst inconveniencing you for about 30 seconds if stopped (which has happened twice in a decade), and potentially stopping people who can’t see from driving. And they are getting slated.Yet how many posts on here say the police should do more to curb crap driving? How many people knock them for not doing enough? Seems to me that they can’t win in this situation.
When I was knocked off my push bike and the young girl said she couldn’t see me - I’d have been okay with them checking her site. Why couldn’t she see me on a perfectly clear sunny day? I’m still in pain with my knee. If I’m stopped again I’m more than happy with the police checking my site - and if my vision ever does get bad I’ll make sure I wear my glasses.
I agree with that in principle, it’s the creeping shift from presumed innocence that concerns me.
The specific problem here, is not being addressed. Namely people who look and don’t care what they see, they carry on doing what ever it is they intended to do. That comes under the standard of driving in general.
Stop thinking there is presumed innocence … here is no such thing… I’m sure when a member of the police states, I caught you at 90 in a 70. It I presumed you were innocent . No, you have to prove your innocence.
Bloody hell… I don’t know what to say to that.
Where do you find the code ?