Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by Arjimlad, 7 Mar 2018.
Driving like a twat was the problem, not his eyesight
No it doesn't
No it doesn’t - but then we have a legal regime which seems to be about, wherever possible, protecting the “innate right”* of the motorist to drive rather than looking at the risks they pose to other road users.
Personally, I’d love to see far greater restrictions where there is a physical issue which may impair someone’s ability to drive safely: whether this is related to vision, mobility/range of motion, medication etc.
*or so many motorists think.
Wow. The victim has commented on the story.
I have had very poor sight in one eye since birth and have been told by opticians that I may have difficulty judging distances.
I don’t believe this is the case as I am used to judging distances with, in effect, one eye. I suspect that if someone suddenly lost vision in one eye it would take them some time to adjust and that in the adjustment period they may have difficulty.
I agree entirely with you, but I consider that having vision in only one eye does not, in many cases, impair someone’s ability to drive safely (or to do anything else safely).
No. Indeed, you can hold a commercial pilots licence, provided the remaining eye works well enough. Mrs D is blind in one eye, and periodically (it was 3 years, but now every 5 in Mrs D's case) her GP has to re-certify her as fit to drive, and makes his recommendations to the DVLA. In Mrs D's case she quickly learned to compensate for the lack of depth perception. However, she will not drive in foul weather such as heavy rain, fog or snow, as she feels that her brain receives insufficient visual information upon which to safely judge distances.
Mrs D is an ex police driver, more highly qualified and experienced than I am, and as a retired Class 1 myself I judge her driving as excellent. It's certainly better, safer, and more skilled than most of the 2 eyed muppets that inhabit our roads.
You may consider that - other may disagree.
Mrs D is a responsible driver. Unfortunately they appear to be few and far between.
Indeed. There seems to be little correlation between the number of functioning eyes on has, and one's inherent levels of muppetry.
Although this collision took place to the driver's right side (his good eye) I am still very concerned at the vastly reduced peripheral vision a monocular driver has.
This is reinforced by the mitigation from the guy's solicitor which suggests had the victims been to the nearside it would have been explainable (perhaps even excusable).
"In mitigation, solicitor advocate Mike Wynter said that Tippett is blind in his left eye but acknowledged that Mr Squires and his child were to his right."
FWIW I’ve driven cars and/or ridden motorbikes for 38 years (guesstimate 760k miles) with, in effect, one eye.
In that time I’ve had one very minor ‘at fault’ collision (running into the back of a car in stop / start traffic in the early 90’s) which didn’t result in any damage or injuries.
I’m not claiming to be the best driver in the world, but I do think my anecdotal evidence (and @Drago ’s) supports the point that only having sight in one eye does not, in itself, make a person a poor driver.
I’m astonished that was offered in mitigation. IME turning one’s neck to look around is an effective solution to the reduced peripheral vision on one side. (Although in my case I am not totally blind in one eye and I do, to some extent, pick up things that are happening in my ‘bad’ eye’s peripheral vision).
I wasn't suggesting it made anyone drive poorly, my concern is that there is a substantial reduction in peripheral vision which cannot be fully compensated for.
This reduces the driver's ability to react to movement nearby and to his blind side. His standard of driving, i.e. car control, compliance with relevant signs and laws etc. may be to an acceptable level but his lost peripheral vision puts others in that zone at greater risk.
The driver cannot react to what he cannot see.
But surely if someone can pass the driving tests, they have proven to the required standard that they can compensate well enough for their physical condition?
Possibly the tests should be stricter and standards higher but that's another discussion. Simply rejecting one-eyed people for not having two eyes rather than testing their ability smells too much like illegal discrimination to me. I think I'm much more worried about lethal stupidity than number of eyes.
Then again, this driver and their lawyer should probably hang their head in shame for raising an irrelevant condition in mitigation. They've done equality campaigns no favours there.
Separate names with a comma.