GOV UK says both on the DVSA bit of the website:


If I couldn't read the plate in the market car park, acuity would be a merely academic matter. But the final word goes to my optician. I still have the option of glasses open to me.


I can confirm that. Living 18 miles from the hospital and having a 9.30am appointment meant I couldn't use the bus from home, so I drove to the RD&E in Exeter. I had absolutely no intention of doing anything unsafe, but the last time I had endured an hour long bus ride after a 30 minute wait, they didn't do the drops anyway. That meant I could easily see the word Cancelled on the board at the bus station on the way home. So this time, I took my bus pass, had the drops and examination, then walked in sunshine of painful Saharan proportions to the bus stop. Catching the first service into town, I walked around in Braille until I saw a sign saying "CAFE" big enough to be read. I ordered coffee and cake and groped my way to a table. When the mist cleared, I realised that I was probably the only person there who wasn't under the care of the local authority adult services team, on either side of the counter, which could explain why it was so cheap. But it was jolly tasty, and friendly too. Quite a day out by the time I had recovered enough to catch the bus back to the car and drive home.

 
Last Wednesday I had a follow-up appointment at a private eye clinic working in co-operation with the NHS. The Royal Berkshire Hospital had referred me there two years ago; my eye inspection and a scan at Thatcham Hospital were reassuring. Last week I was told not to drive lest my eyes were dilated, so I took the direct 50 bus from central Reading to Green Park. I had a perfunctory eye test and was told "that's enough" with three lines left on the chart, then the nurse got me to click a button every time a white flash
appeared (to check my peripheral vision??)

The doctor said that this test told him nothing and he wondered why I'd had it. He spent 30-40 seconds peering into each eye, said they needed to be dilated but they couldn't do that then - could I return on Monday.

So yesterday back I went. Again I only had to read down to the last line but three on the chart, had my eyes dilated and then another doctor spent 30 to 40 seconds peering into each one and then discharging me. (Why couldn't that have been done last week?)

Walking to the bus stop in bright sunshine with dilated eyes wasn't any fun, and when a bus came past me and halted at a stop 30 yards in front of me. I scampered up to it and got on, to discover that it was a 9 "Breeze" service that ended at the new Green Park railway station, spending 15 minutes there before starting its return journey - up and down the streets of South Reading and taking three times along as the 50 service.

(At the start of the day I aimed to arrive at my local bus stop four or five minutes before a bus was due. In fact it arrived and departed three minutes early. I would not have been happy had I missed it and had to wait 20 minutes for the next one.)

I've been inclined to check my eyesight against neighbours'  cars' registration plates, and found there was quite some difference in how easily I was able to read them on a bright day compared with a dull one.

 
Good to know and thanks for this. It's so well embedded in the public consciousness that it would be good to remove it from *that* - not sure how best to do that. Opticians no longer having a larger than lifesize vehicle registration plate or two on various walls, that would help!

Mark

 

It has been retired.  The requirement now is:
You must have a visual acuity at least 0.5 (6/12) measured on the Snellen scale in both eyes, or in one eye only.

Eye test charts now have a horizontal line at this point.

 
My dad gave up driving at around 84 years - he'd driven tractors, cars and LGVs all his life from teenage years.  My father-in-law gave up driving at about 91.  He'd been a village bobby and had been police trained on motorbikes and patrol cars, but hadn't actually taken a test before he got his driving licence

I wish both had ceased driving several years before they actually did, although I know it would have affected bth of them greatly in terms of getting around

And now at 70, I'm wondering when it will be my turn to forego the licence, At present with good unaided visiion and (what I think are) quick reactions and a weekly milage in the mid hundreds at least, I'm in no rush

I think the eyesight test prior to renewal, rather than self certification, is a great idea.  Also mandatory health, mobility and reaction tests at some point, possibly 80

 

Agree entirely. The Trolleygraph looking for a self-identified victim to use as today's tool against the government doesn't surprise me. That we let someone drive who is clearly unable to understand the rules is a matter for concern.

 

Live in Reading, and possibly exceptionally stupid. Also not a lot of choice if you don't drive and don't live on a remote Scottish island.

Some would say that "Motornormativity" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motonormativity is part of the problem.

The BBC reference gives detail. With input from Ian Walker. "Sippy Downs" sounds like somewhere not to drive!

 
I recently retired at 75 as a bus driver.
From the age of 65, all PCV drivers must have an annual medical which include an eye test.
I failed the eye test around 15 (or more) years ago with cataracts.
Both eyes done and back on the road with what I call plastic eyes and no glasses.
Wore glasses from the age of my early 20's.

I now have an annual eye test being a senior.

Also as a PCV driver, we had to have frequent refresher courses to keep our CPC (Certificate of Professional Competence) valid.
These are a DVSA requirement and are renewed every 5 years.

This also kept my overall driving level quite high as well.

Contrary to the general assumption that "anyone can drive a bus", it needs a lot of training.
Yes, there are some bus drivers who shouldn't be on the road (there are some car drivers who shouldn't), and they spoil it for the majority who are good caring drivers.

 
I used to cycle a reasonable amount, including commuting, but the thought of getting on a bike now at 60 scares me.

Do you live on a remote Scottish island, or are you just exceptionally brave?

 
I do not see a problem with an eye test for over 70's (I'm rapidly approaching it   )  after all NHS eye tests are free for the over 60's currently.

 
In my view, ALL drivers should be required to pass a sight test, before a licence is granted, and every 10 years thereafter, and every few years for over 70s. those who pass, but only by a small margin, should be re tested more frequently.
All drivers involved in a serious accident should be tested for sight, and for general fitness to drive.

I have previously spoken in favour, of small lightweight, and speed limited cars, known in Europe as VSPs. drivers of such vehicles should still be subject to sight testing, but a slightly lower standard would be acceptable.

 
In context, I am aged 66 - never mind 'three score years and ten'. 

Until I retired recently, I was a grocery delivery van driver. In my most recent 'independent' assessment, by a qualified RAC examiner, he passed me, while suggesting that I could perhaps get my eyesight prescription checked.

I did so - and, to my surprise, found that my eyesight had actually improved slightly since my previous prescription.  One new pair of glasses later, I was very happy. 

CfN. 

 
From The Telegraph via Facebook


Yes - but if there is a significant risk of you changing the life of others you'll just have to accept the life change. Perhaps even see it as a new start or phase.  This story highlights the impact of the changes on people.   My understanding is that the proposal is not to take away license at 90, but to take away licenses if and when your reduced eyesight means you can no longer drive safely

 
An eyesight test that requires the driver to be able to read a numberplate at 20 metres is archaic: it has never has been fit for purpose and needs to be ... retired.

Also, does some consideration need to be given to driving with varifocals? They can be fine, but depending on the lens used, thinking of distance vision, not all varifocals provide good focus across a wide visual field. Many users of varifocals will be lifelong wearers of specs, which might indicate that sight tests and requirements shouldn't be tied to age but should apply to anyone who drives a vehicle.

Mark

 
I think this is a sensible requirement.  I have glaucoma and require a DVLA eye test every 3 years when my licence is renewed.

I would like to see requirements added for younger drivers that would prevent them taking passengers, under say 25, for 6 months after passing their test.

 
The three score and ten is vanishing in the rear view mirror.

I haven't driven in about 40 years, the driving licence acts as an ID, because of the strange attitude to such things in this country. Somebody said that their store loyalty card probably knows more about them than HMG.

I have no intention of ever driving again, the view from the bike definitely puts me off. I don't know about the eyesight of drivers, the main problem is the attitude of many which has little to do with age.

I was having my lunchtime break on one of my cycle rides and I said that "I haven't driven in about 40 years", and they kept repeating it during the rest of our conversation. Almost as thou I had been clean of some noxious substances. Shows how ingrained driving is to people lives.

 
Amazingly, I am nearing three score and ten myself. I have an annual eye test, and have no problem with sharing the result with DVSA. The optician always tells me whether I am legal to drive, with or as at present since the MkII eyeballs, without specs. I also have a routine monthly or so to self-assess. At our local market, I know where I can stand 25 metres from the closest car in the car park. Last weekend, I could read the number plate without problem, putting me 25% above the minimum. The day I can't, or the optician advises me against driving, I will stop.

I knew two people who continued to drive after being registered blind, one of whom went so far as to decline the offer of early restoration of his licence after a ban, for fear of being found out. I also know at least two octogenarian pilots who are examined annually by a CAA approved examiner, and pass fit to fly. So let's not demonise the elderly for being old, but I am very much in favour of having to submit an eyesight test report when renewing ones driving licence at 70, and every 3 years thereafter, with proactive steps being taken to check licence holders who don't. I'm happy to be the first.

 
From statistics - a comparative graphic for rail deaths



Where the back bars are suicides and all other causes are combined into the blue.  This graphic is a year old and sadly the number of suicides has risen to 274 or 276 in the 2023/34 year depending on your source, with a further 22 for all other causes.

 
From The BBC


It does make sense to ensure that people remain fit to drive safely once given a license at any age, and I suppose there is statistical logic in having that checked at a certain age and periodically thereafter.

Personally, I am over 70 and had new glasses a couple of months ago.  And as part of the eye testing, the optician confirmed that my sight is still up to the standard required to drive.  I am, however, aware that this may not always be the case in coming years. 

I am an avid user of public transport, live very close to a bus stop with a good service during the day 6 days a week, and within walking distance of both a Sunday and evening bus stop, and a railway station who's timetable is thin but usable, even if its current lack of reliability requires one to always  have a backup plan.

I worry for some of my compatriots who are older than me and still drive themselves around in vehicles far bigger than they need, and who in some cases would not even consider using a bus.  As their ability to drive safely declines, they are going to have really significant lifestyle changes to make so as not to be trapped in their homes.

Interesting - for all this "number too high it has to stop" stuff.  I agree that number are too high. However - they are far lower than they used to be and are not rising.   Injury numbers are shocking - and looking around locally there remain accident black spots where improvements might well be just as (or more) effective than coming down harder on older drivers.  Of course, this is not an "either/or" and best to do both