‘Throwback’ sight test may see us driving into danger zone

But what happens next is a shock. On my next drive, my eyesight is corrected to the legal minimum — the level at which Britain’s 31 million drivers are allowed to drive, the standard required during the basic L-test eyesight test — by an optometrist, using eye examination lenses. I feel I’m driving through light mist. It’s harder to tell what’s going on ahead or stay in lane. I squint at an obstruction 300 yards ahead, but before I react, one of the vehicles veers out in front of me. I swerve the Honda Civic sharply and — just — survive a shocking near miss.

In the second test, my eyesight is corrected to just below the legal minimum to simulate that experienced by millions who don’t bother to

wear glasses or lenses or who don’t realise how much their eyesight has dimmed. The ‘mist’ turns to fog, roadside signs are even harder to read. Again, a car swerves out in front and a glancing blow bounces me into the outside lane.

Computer analysis reveals that with each eyesight degradation, my ability to remain in lane deteriorates and my reactions slow. I’m driving too close to vehicles ahead, reducing my chances of reacting to hazards in time. Just like thousands of other motorists.

Under the rules, L-test candidates must be able to read a numberplate at 65 feet/20m — with spectacles or lenses if needed — before taking the driving test. Drivers should meet this standard as long as they hold a licence, but thousands don’t. In 2014, Department for Transport figures reveal 260 accidents were caused by uncorrected, defective eyesight, nine of which were fatal, 56 serious and 195 slight.

“It’s worrying,” says Henry Leonard, Clinical and Regulatory Officer for the Association of Optometrists, who oversaw my experiment. “There is no requirement for drivers to have regular sight tests; a 17-year-old who can read a number plate may continue driving for the rest of their life with no further vision checks. Tests show that many drivers fall below the required standard as their eyesight changes over time, often without realising. Regular sight testing should be compulsory.”

Gus Park, of Direct Line, says: “The driving eyesight check is a moment in time and, for many drivers, the only sight test they’ve had in over 20 years. We need a review into vision testing.”

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency defended the system. A spokesman said: “Mandatory eyesight tests would put the majority of drivers, who already ensure they can meet the legal eyesight standards for driving, to considerable inconvenience and expense. The test is simple and effective and can be reproduced by motorists to check whether they meet the standards and by police at the roadside.”

Road safety charity Brake, organiser of Road Safety Week, disagrees.

“The current method is a throwback to the 1960s,” says a spokesperson. “It fails to measure for visual acuity and visual field, and allows people to drive with eyesight that makes them unsafe. An estimated 2,900 casualties a year are caused by drivers with poor vision. We need the Government to make it compulsory for drivers to prove a recent professional eyesight test when renewing their licence, every 10 years for the general population, every three years for those over 70.”

@djrwilliams

roadsafetyweek.org.uk