UK and Europe · Public discussion

SMIDSY Explanation

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 71 posts · 1,829 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
27 October 2004
Last activity
10 November 2004
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
71
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,829
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 71
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "chris French" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In message <[email hidden]>, vernon levy
    <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    > Last time I had one, an eye test was about 14 quid; I'm
    > sure this could be subsidised or discounted quite heavily.

    ASDA charge a tenner.


    If you are a member of the Local Co-Op here in Leeds then eye tests are
    free (membership costs a minimum of GBP 2)

    I let that one slip by. Probably couldn't focus on the sign 'til I got some
    specs anyway :-)

  2. JohnB <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Last time I had one, an eye test was about 14 quid; I'm
    sure this could be subsidised or discounted quite heavily.

    Quoted message said:

    Not out of my taxes thank you.

    Quoted message said:

    John B

    I don't think the driving test vision qualifications are particularly
    relevant to SMIDSY situations.

    Visual fields and pattern recognition might well be more important but
    are more difficult and expensive to test.

    Of course, it would be nice to correct the correctable with spectacles
    etc but I don't think this approaches the full nature of the problem.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  3. "Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    JohnB <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Last time I had one, an eye test was about 14 quid; I'm
    sure this could be subsidised or discounted quite heavily.

    Quoted message said:

    Not out of my taxes thank you.

    Quoted message said:

    John B

    I don't think the driving test vision qualifications are particularly
    relevant to SMIDSY situations.

    Visual fields and pattern recognition might well be more important but
    are more difficult and expensive to test.

    Of course, it would be nice to correct the correctable with spectacles
    etc but I don't think this approaches the full nature of the problem.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware

    To carry out a full eye exam an optometrist must have access to a fields
    screener. Though not nessercerily an Esterman (as required by the DVLA) it
    would provide a route (if compulsory) for the optomertrist to refer the
    patient back to their doctor if they were not happy with the patients
    standard of vision.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004

  4. "Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    JohnB <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Last time I had one, an eye test was about 14 quid; I'm
    sure this could be subsidised or discounted quite heavily.

    Quoted message said:

    Not out of my taxes thank you.

    Quoted message said:

    John B

    I don't think the driving test vision qualifications are particularly
    relevant to SMIDSY situations.

    Visual fields and pattern recognition might well be more important but
    are more difficult and expensive to test.

    Of course, it would be nice to correct the correctable with spectacles
    etc but I don't think this approaches the full nature of the problem.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

    To carry out a full eye exam an optometrist must have access to a fields
    screener. Though not nessercerily an Esterman (as required by the DVLA) it
    would provide a route (if compulsory) for the optometrist to refer the
    patient back to their doctor if they were not happy with the patients
    standard of vision.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004

  5. Tony Raven posted:

    Quoted message said:

    Basic eyesight tests on people who did not wear glasses revealed 65%
    of those who failed were drivers.

    I wonder if that also includes the numpty who ran into the rear of my
    correctly parked Landrover, in broad daylight.

    He was a keen cyclist, a local time-triallist and a 'leading light' in a
    local cycling club at the time he ran into us, but is also a driver ... He
    was a tad embarrased when he had to admit he had no idea how it happened,
    but said he simply didn't see the Landrover.

    Quoted message said:

    They suggest tham many people are putting themselves at risk not only
    of accidents, but also of prosecution, as driving with uncorrected
    vision is an offence and can carry a fine of up to £1,000, three
    penalty points and possible disqualification.

    I honestly don't know, but is it also an offence to cycle on the road with
    uncorrected vision?

    Is there _any_ requirement for cyclists to have vision checked?

    I guess not as cycles, and their riders, aren't licensed.

    --
    Paul ...

    (8(|) ... Homer Rocks

  6. Paul - censored said:

    Tony Raven posted:

    Quoted message said:

    Basic eyesight tests on people who did not wear glasses revealed 65%
    of those who failed were drivers.

    I wonder if that also includes the numpty who ran into the rear of my
    correctly parked Landrover, in broad daylight.

    He was a keen cyclist, a local time-triallist and a 'leading light' in a
    local cycling club at the time he ran into us, but is also a driver ...
    He
    was a tad embarrased when he had to admit he had no idea how it happened,
    but said he simply didn't see the Landrover.

    I met a guy last year at Emley Moor mast. We were both on bikes and had
    stopped to admire the mast. He told me of the time he cycled straight into
    a parked Merc. Head down, not concentrating, he just hit it full on at
    speed and landed on the bonnet...

    Quoted message said:

    I honestly don't know, but is it also an offence to cycle on the road
    with
    uncorrected vision?

    Is there _any_ requirement for cyclists to have vision checked?

    I guess not as cycles, and their riders, aren't licensed.

    ....of course the disgruntled Merc owner was well [censored] at the blood
    on his car's bonnet. No damage to the car, but a fair bit of blood. The
    cyclist's leg though will never heal properly. That scar's there for life
    and for the want of an inch or two nearly ended his life.

    Stupid or short-sighted? Either way he's the one who came close to dying.
    The shortsighted Merc driver however is likely to take someone else with
    him.

    Colin

  7. Colin Blackburn vaguely muttered something like ...

    Quoted message said:

    ...of course the disgruntled Merc owner was well [censored] at the blood
    on his car's bonnet. No damage to the car, but a fair bit of blood. The
    cyclist's leg though will never heal properly. That scar's there for life
    and for the want of an inch or two nearly ended his life.

    The cyclist who hit us was OK, thankfully, and the Landrover, well, would
    another scratch on the towbar even be noticed ? ... He was a little shook up
    and mostly surprised that I was there, he really didn't see us, though he
    wasn't 'head down and batting on' .. 😉

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules !!!
    "A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

  8. JohnB said:

    I would object to contributing towards eye tests that were specifically
    for allowing a person to drive.

    What about free eye tests for /everybody/? You might have to pay a bit
    more tax, but wouldn't it feel nice when you go for your annual/biannual
    eye test and don't have to pay?

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  9. Following on from Helen Deborah Vecht's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    I don't think the driving test vision qualifications are particularly
    relevant to SMIDSY situations.

    Visual fields and pattern recognition might well be more important but
    are more difficult and expensive to test.

    Of course, it would be nice to correct the correctable with spectacles
    etc but I don't think this approaches the full nature of the problem.


    It's a good start. (Look up Pareto curve : 80% of the problems can be
    dealt with by 20% of the solutions.) Anyone with a visual fields
    problem has serious other problems.

    We all know the main issue is people pretending everything is OK. This
    is much more a social thing than a technical matter - after all the
    (admittedly feeble) standard of reading a number plate at 30?yds is
    available to the police 24 hours a day and IMHO is the first milestone
    to reach - Until there is the will to enforce just this, and for the
    public to accept it as a requirement, I can't see much point in worrying
    about more advanced stuff.

    There are good arguments for periodic eye tests for everyone _but
    according to circumstances_ which vary a great deal.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business collapsed
    [email hidden]
    2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
    Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

  10. On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:37:30 +0100, Colin Blackburn wrote:

    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    stopped to admire the mast. He told me of the time he cycled straight into
    a parked Merc. Head down, not concentrating, he just hit it full on at
    speed and landed on the bonnet...


    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    The shortsighted Merc driver however is likely to take someone else with
    him.

    Am I missing something? What makes the owner of the Mercedes to blame?

    --
    Mike

  11. Peter Fox wrote:

    We all know the main issue is people pretending everything is OK. This

    Quoted message said:

    is much more a social thing than a technical matter - after all the
    (admittedly feeble) standard of reading a number plate at 30?yds is
    available to the police 24 hours a day and IMHO is the first milestone
    to reach -

    It's 20.5m, a remarkably close distance.
    In my driving test the instructor asked me to read a number plate from 'the
    blue renault'. I picked the wrong blue renault, about 50m away and had no
    problem reading that (I do have very good long vision). This was pointed
    out to me at which point the examiner reckoned that it was good enough to
    pass..

    ...d
    --
    This is my signature

  12. Paul - censored said:

    I wonder if that also includes the numpty who ran into the rear of my
    correctly parked Landrover, in broad daylight.

    He was a keen cyclist, a local time-triallist and a 'leading light' in a
    local cycling club at the time he ran into us, but is also a driver ... He
    was a tad embarrased when he had to admit he had no idea how it happened,
    but said he simply didn't see the Landrover.

    He was probably cycling "heads down". You get disqualified if spotted
    by the marshals because it's so dangerous, but the aero bar position
    maks it hard to keep your head up.

    The head of personnel at work killed himself in a TT 10 years ago by
    riding into the back of a stationary Range Rover.

  13. mb said:
    Colin Blackburn said:

    The shortsighted Merc driver however is likely to take someone else with
    him.

    Quoted message said:

    Am I missing something? What makes the owner of the Mercedes to blame?

    Nothing in this case. I was illustrating that a shortsighted cyclist is a
    danger to himself while a short-sighted car driver is a danger to others.
    I should have used "A..." rather than "The..."

    Colin

  14. "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I honestly don't know, but is it also an offence to cycle on the road with
    uncorrected vision?

    Is there _any_ requirement for cyclists to have vision checked?

    I guess not as cycles, and their riders, aren't licensed.

    There are degrees of defective vision though. I started wearing glasses for
    driving years before I felt the need to use them for cycling and I can still
    manage without them a lot of the time when not driving nor road cycling
    In my case it's a speed thing that dictates how far I need to look ahead,
    f'rinstance I woudn't want to cross a busy road with potentially high speed
    traffic without my specs but do ride slower technical off-road trails
    without when my prescription cycling glasses mist up, in fact it's then far
    safer.

    But the report doesn't surprise me. Based on personal experience there was
    nothing to prompt me to go for an eye test, after years of very good vision,
    other than my own perception that things weren't quite right. This was when
    I did a lot of driving, including in darkness when you need to gauge vehicle
    distances on mways by
    feedback from red tail lights, and at that time I'd easily have passed the
    number plate test in good daylight.
    And despite having focal problems my peripheral vision remains excellent
    (touch wood).

    My own experience made me ponder this subject and I'm convinced there are
    numerous people driving with eyesight not up to the job which explains some
    of their behaviour.

    Pete

  15. David Martin said:

    Peter Fox wrote:

    We all know the main issue is people pretending everything is OK. This

    Quoted message said:

    is much more a social thing than a technical matter - after all the
    (admittedly feeble) standard of reading a number plate at 30?yds is
    available to the police 24 hours a day and IMHO is the first milestone
    to reach -

    It's 20.5m, a remarkably close distance.
    In my driving test the instructor asked me to read a number plate from 'the
    blue renault'. I picked the wrong blue renault, about 50m away and had no
    problem reading that (I do have very good long vision). This was pointed
    out to me at which point the examiner reckoned that it was good enough to
    pass..

    ..d

    Yes, I had something similar happen to me. I was shocked at just how
    close that is. No wonder theres's so much last minute swerving into
    other lanes, if people are quite possibly driving with vision only just
    good enough to read the numberplate that close.

    That said, I do now wear glasses. And it makes a *lot* of difference
    when driving. Not for much else (other than avoiding splitting
    headaches), but definitely driving (and cycling too). I can read signs
    from much further away than previous - but with glasses my vision is
    apparently quite a bit better than 20/20. Even without glasses, it's
    better than 20/20 in the long-sighted eye - the short-sighted one
    obviously doesn't quite get there, but they're only a quarter and a half
    a diopter (I forget which is which) of adjustment.

    I can see without the glasses, and can survive ok when driving without
    them (apart from splitting headaches) - I can see everything, but not
    get the very fine resolution. And driving in the dark is more
    problematic, because of the lack of fine resolution (partly due to
    astigmatism).

    The optician commented that my eyes were well above average for people
    he sees, and most people don't realise they need glasses and htey have
    MUCH worse eyesight than mine - and they're on the roads. Once I picked
    up that the vision was changing, it was probably only because I used to
    have better than 20/20 that I noticed it at all, the changes have been
    so slight (and opposite in each eye rather than hte same).

    Scary stuff. Part of me says I'd like to see more stringent eye tests
    for the driving test, but then the other part of me wonders how much is
    due to a lapse in observational skills. There's been occasions where
    I've not spotted something as early as I could have, and if my vision's
    better than 20/20, I had no excuse for not seeing it, and a more
    stringent vision test as part of the driving test wouldn't have made an
    iota of difference to that.

    --

    Velvet

  16. Velvet said:

    The optician commented that my eyes were well above average for people
    he sees, and most people don't realise they need glasses and htey have
    MUCH worse eyesight than mine - and they're on the roads. Once I picked
    up that the vision was changing, it was probably only because I used to
    have better than 20/20 that I noticed it at all, the changes have been
    so slight (and opposite in each eye rather than hte same).

    Scary stuff. Part of me says I'd like to see more stringent eye tests
    for the driving test, but then the other part of me wonders how much is
    due to a lapse in observational skills. There's been occasions where
    I've not spotted something as early as I could have, and if my vision's
    better than 20/20, I had no excuse for not seeing it, and a more
    stringent vision test as part of the driving test wouldn't have made an
    iota of difference to that.

    It is definitely scary. My wife ahs astigmatism and short sight so must wear
    glasses for almost everything except extreme close work.

    I enjoy taking photos, particularly landscapes. She likes looking at the
    photos because they are sharper than her real life. I always have a twinge
    of disappointment because they are always grainier than my real life.

    We went to a friends house for a meal one summers evening in Oslo (where I
    used to live). In fact it wasn't in Oslo but was part way down the Oslo
    Fjord. We were standing on the balcony admiring the somewhat fine view when
    I amde a throwaway comment like 'Its a fine evening for them in the hot air
    balloon'. The response from most was 'What balloon?' 'Over there, between
    those two hills, about 10 miles away'. 'Where?'. So the host went and got
    his admiralty grade binoculars and most people could then just about make
    it out. With the binoculars I could tell them what colour it was.

    I have the opposite issue in the cinema. A lot of the long shots are very
    slightly out of focus which gives me a vicious headache by the end of the
    film. The thing that ruined the scenery in LOTR was the addition of motion
    blur. When you are used to beig able to see the world in pin sharp focus,
    it is really annoying to have it 'dumbed down' like that.

    I do feel though that my near sight is deteriorating slowly. Just an
    impression I get.

    ...d

    --
    This is my signature

  17. David Martin said:


    I do feel though that my near sight is deteriorating slowly. Just an
    impression I get.

    ..d

    Mine was a slow thing, too. I only noticed it when I realised that some
    days I couldn't read the time on the video from across the room (it's
    fairly small, in a large room). That came and went for a bit, I just
    put it down to tiredness.

    Then I realised that I could see both the road ahead AND my
    speedo/dashboard much more clearly than I should be able to. This was
    useful, and I eventually worked out (from closing one eye, then the
    other - not while driving!!!) that only one eye was going short-sighted.

    I went to the opticions, who confirmed this, said I probably could live
    without glasses, but I said I wanted them as I was about to start
    driving a lot and had noticed I got headaaches while driving long
    distances, which I couldn't put down to anything other than maybe the
    eye imbalance. I wore them intermittently, then not for a while, then
    when the headaches returned with a vengeance and started on an almost
    daily basis from using a PC for an hour or so, I went back to the
    opticions, and they confirmed the short-sighted was ever so slightly
    worse, but more importantly, the other eye was going long-sighted - and
    I had a very mild astigmatism in both eyes (it was this that affected
    what I see at night - it spreads the light of oncoming car headlights in
    a rather unpleasant manner, especially when you're used to pin-sharp
    vision the rest of the time).

    If I didn't drive and use a PC for a living, I wouldn't have bothered
    getting them checked in the first place, nor going back the second
    time... I'd probably have had little idea there was anythign going on at
    all.

    With glasses, I see the world in true 3D again. Without, everything is
    very slightly 'flatter'. I still have distance perception, but it's
    easier to see things that would make a good photo without the glasses.
    I took some of my better photos when I wasn't wearing glasses. These
    days, if I go without them for an hour, the cripplign headaches are
    back, so it makes it harder to go armed with only the camera and not the
    specs too ;-) With them, I find myself seeing the relationships in
    depth, rather than just the framed view. And cinema's would give me the
    same problem as you (without glasses). Hated it. Even now, I prefer to
    watch films on the small screen - cinemas are grainy and blurred, and
    quite honestly, pants in terms of quality. IMO :-) Nothing is sharp.
    Certainly nowhere near what I see IRL. And even without glasses, as I
    said, my vision is apparently better htan 20/20 in one eye, and not all
    that much worse than 20/20 in the other.

    The comments of the optician brought home just how differently other
    people's vision can be. I'm pretty sure a lot of people see the world
    in a lot softer focus than I do - probably something similar to what I
    used to see without glasses, through my short-sighted eye. Food for
    thought, when you're wondering if someone's seen you as you're
    driving/cycling/walking along or not! Personally, I'd not dare drive
    these days without them, except in an emergency or whilst changing from
    normal to sunglasses. I'm used to the vision I have, and anything less
    than that just makes things more worrying and stressful than it need be.

    --

    Velvet

  18. David Martin said:

    I have the opposite issue in the cinema. A lot of the long shots are very
    slightly out of focus which gives me a vicious headache by the end of the
    film. The thing that ruined the scenery in LOTR was the addition of motion
    blur. When you are used to beig able to see the world in pin sharp focus,
    it is really annoying to have it 'dumbed down' like that.

    I thought it was just me.

    My uncorrected vision is atrocious, but I have 20/10 vision with my
    glasses and 20/5 vision with contact lenses. Motion blur in films is
    really irritating.

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  19. On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:07:23 GMT, Velvet <[email hidden]>

    wrote in message : said:

    The optician commented that my eyes were well above average for people
    he sees, and most people don't realise they need glasses and htey have
    MUCH worse eyesight than mine - and they're on the roads.

    The first time my sister went to the optician, he told her not to
    drive home.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

  20. On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:29:34 +0100, David Martin
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    I have the opposite issue in the cinema. A lot of the long shots are very
    slightly out of focus which gives me a vicious headache by the end of the
    film.

    Nah, that's just a [censored] projectionist - try shouting "Focus!" ;-)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.