Renewed calls have been made for stricter regulations on drivers’ vision.
There has been continued discontent over minimal DVLA requirements for drivers’ vision and the tragic consequences of poor vision behind the wheel. This week a leading insurer and optical body called for stricter screening laws.
‘Cassie’s Law’ was introduced in 2013, after teenager Cassie McCord was struck by a car driven by an 87-year-old man who had failed a police eye test days earlier, and has resulted in hundreds of licences being revoked every year since.
Nevertheless, motorists are not asked to renew their licence until the age of 70 and, even by then, are not required to complete any further vision test. Instead, people are prompted to confirm they meet minimum eyesight requirements.
Optical practices can use Road Safety Week, from November 21-27, to encourage drivers to take responsibility by booking an eye exam, but have been left limited in their powers to improve road safety.
Fatal ignorance
Ahead of Road Safety Week, insurer Direct Line has released findings to show many drivers who have been prescribed with vision correction were behind the wheel without wearing their optical appliance. Its research among 2,003 UK adults found a quarter of those who need glasses or contact lenses always drove without them, which Direct Line said increased their chance of a crash fourfold.
In addition, latest government data showed 64 people were killed or seriously injured by drivers with uncorrected or defective eyesight in 2015, while more than a third of drivers have not had a vision test in the past two years.
Direct Line stressed that UK drivers risked invalidating their insurance, a £1,000 fine or prison sentence if they cause an accident due to defective vision.
The insurer also analysed the effects of impaired vision on driving performance using a driving simulator across different levels of vision. A specially constructed motorway environment measured driving performance including vehicle following, traffic navigation, curve following and reaction times.
It found that when vision fell below the legal limit there were serious implications on driving performance, making it harder to stay in lane, keep a consistent speed or a safe distance from the car in front. Poor eyesight also impeded the driver’s ability to react to unexpected hazards, resulting in sudden braking and an increased risk of causing, or being involved in, an accident.
Gus Park, director of motor at Direct Line, said: ‘This research shows just how dangerous it can be to drive without good or corrected eyesight, especially at this time of year when the clocks go back, as conditions such as glaucoma and cataracts can make it harder to drive in the dark.
‘The current driving eyesight check is a moment in time and, for many drivers, the only sight test they have had in over 20 years. You wouldn’t expect the pilot flying you home or the train or bus driver on your daily commute to have poor eyesight. We would encourage a review into the current requirements for vision testing in relation to driving to ensure the safety of all road users.’
A statement by the insurer stressed that those drivers with vision below 6/12 on the Snellen scale, or with cataracts or glaucoma, have a duty to inform the DVLA, but optometrist Henry Leonard, clinical and regulatory officer at the Association of Optometrists (AOP), also called for compulsory regular sight testing.
He added: ‘In the UK there is currently no requirement for drivers to have regular sight tests. This means that a 17-year-old, who can read a number plate when they take their driving test, may continue driving for the rest of their life with no further vision checks. Roadside tests have shown that many drivers subsequently fall below the required standard as their eyesight changes over time, often without realising.
‘In much the same way that cars are required to have an MoT to ensure they are roadworthy, we believe regular sight testing should be compulsory for all motorists, to ensure their vision meets the required standards.’
The insurer’s bleak findings correlated with those of multiple Vision Express when its Vision Van offered free eye tests at service stations in England during last year’s Road Safety Week. Vision Express found of those examined on the mobile eye testing unit, one in five were referred to their GPs for further tests and 72% needed a new prescription. A quarter did not have an eye exam every two years.
Ombudsman report
A latest report by Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), meanwhile, will not help in encouraging road users to discover and declare their visual needs.
The report claimed drivers had been ‘left in limbo’ as a result of major failings by the DVLA.
Parliamentary and health service ombudsman Julie Mellor said: ‘People’s lives have been put on hold for years because of severe delays and flawed decisions by the DVLA, leading people to lose their jobs, causing stress, worry and isolation.
‘DVLA has accepted our findings and has taken steps to address some of the failures identified such as producing a new guide for medical professionals and improving its complaint-handling and communications.’
In addition to flawed decisions relating to vision, complaints had been made by drivers who had suffered from heart attacks, strokes and chronic fatigue syndrome. PHSO added that fitness to drive tests were not fit for purpose.
In response to the report, the International Glaucoma Association (IGA) said this week it had been alerted to many of the issues covered, and developed a positive relationship with the DVLA Drivers Medical Group since, resulting in improvements around administration and communication.
Karen Osborn, chief executive of the IGA, said: ‘The IGA welcomes the findings and recommendations in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, and in particular the need for clear evidence-based standards to assess whether people with glaucoma are fit to drive.’
She said there was now clearer information about the tests drivers with glaucoma should expect when visiting the DVLA-approved Specsavers, which took sole charge of the DVLA contract in 2014.
This information included when a person can seek a second opinion if a licence is revoked, as well as a named contact at the DVLA for people with glaucoma to approach about their application.
However, the IGA also questioned whether the visual field test was fit for purpose in assessing the ability of people with glaucoma to drive safely.
Osborn added: ‘We are concerned that statistics from the DVLA show that 62 per cent of car drivers and 35 per cent of commercial drivers’ who contest the original revocation decision, are subsequently found safe to drive. If the government and the DVLA were to invest in more realistic tests of visual function, this would benefit not just drivers with glaucoma but patients with, or at risk of all types of visual disability.’
Read more
