6 weeks after passing my driving test in the first attempt I went on a RoSPA driving safety course for no other reason than it seemed a good idea, my dad paid for it and I got to drive my parents car for a bit longer before they knocked me off the insurance. Added bonus was that the course insured us to drive other people's cars with their permission so I got to drive a large engined rover (was a while ago). My biggest take from that course was that despite passing my test with flying colours and being described as a good driver I really didn't observe that many of the potential hazards I encountered driving. The driving test and lessons leading to them did not adequately teach hazard awareness. I believe this is part of the current test but how many are driving who passed before it was brought in? IMHO a one eyed driver is likely to compensate for the loss of one eye by using his / her good eye more efficiently. By that I mean learn to become more observant. If you can't observe a hazard you are putting yourself or others at risk. It's likely to be the observation not the physical sight of it that determines safety. To put it into a cycling framework. I own a recumbent and before I got it ppl on cycling forums who used similar bikes / trikes all said it's likely to be safer riding them than uprights because drivers notice you because you're an unusual object on the road. The opposite of this argument is that there will be accidents where drivers saw uprights but didn't acknowledge it. As in observation failure. I don't know if this is true but I'd love to see research on observation of hazards and the differences between two samples of fully sighted and single eyed drivers. It could be a very simple test on a simulator. Get a big enough sample set you could get good results / research out of it.