Random Eye Tests

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hurrah, I'd like to see more of this:
<url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/wales/south_east/5277958.stm>

Lo-res.... how quaint.

Hi-res version a bit difficult to see?? ;-)

joking aside, what a good idea. How on earth can anyone who can't pass the
sight requirement not be aware of things being a little difficult? It's
either a terminal lack of self- awareness, laziness, vanity or meanness in
the extreme (for they must either not know they need (new) glasses, not be
arsed to so anything about it, think they'd ruin their good looks, or not
value their life sufficiently).

After a period of awareness raising, bring on the prosecutions.

"Budstaff" <[email hidden]> wrote:
| joking aside, what a good idea. How on earth can anyone who can't pass the
| sight requirement not be aware of things being a little difficult? ...

It's called "habituation". We adapt to the inadequacy of our senses.

All-round(-ish), full colour, high resolution vision is an illusion created
by the unconscious mind to cover for the spectacularly small and patchy
sight signals provided by the eye; and a good thing too, because otherwise
we would have to cope with the inadequacies consciously.

It's why you don't "see" your blind spot, and it's why you aren't aware
of glaucoma damage and the like until it's catastrophically too late.
Unfortunately, it does also rather mask the inadequacies of the small
high-resolution parts of the sight signal when that deteriorates.

"Budstaff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hurrah, I'd like to see more of this:
<url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/wales/south_east/5277958.stm>

Lo-res.... how quaint.

Hi-res version a bit difficult to see?? ;-)

joking aside, what a good idea. How on earth can anyone who can't pass
the sight requirement not be aware of things being a little difficult?
It's either a terminal lack of self- awareness, laziness, vanity or
meanness in the extreme (for they must either not know they need (new)
glasses, not be arsed to so anything about it, think they'd ruin their
good looks, or not value their life sufficiently).

After a period of awareness raising, bring on the prosecutions.

I am sure that many people do not realise how their eyesight changes.
In older folk it can happen unexpectedly -- well the changes take place
slowly but the perception is only noticed after a lapse of time!

This year during my long tour I suddenly realised that I could see better
( long distance) without my bifocals than with them. I knew I was due for my
annual eye test in August and I realised that my eye sight had undergone a
real change.
So I am wearing a new set of drastically different "specs" now with a
second pair specifically for cycling with "reactolite" lenses.

Bu the decision point isn't cut and dried. And it applies to cyclists as
well as motorists!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Budstaff said:

joking aside, what a good idea. How on earth can anyone who can't pass the
sight requirement not be aware of things being a little difficult? It's
either a terminal lack of self- awareness, laziness, vanity or

meanness in

Quoted message said:

the extreme ...

or the other option: folk who don't need glasses generally have no idea
what those of us with glasses can see. Don't lump me in with the
self-denying blind bats or I'll start on you for red-light-jumping and
pavement-granny-bothering. 🙂

I am borderline for the driving test without glasses. Without my glasses
I have trouble with teletext from 15', or small town names on dual
carriageway signs until its nearly too late to respond. And thats it. I
can see how a white football is spinning 30 yards away, use my serious
camera, be a SCUBA instructor, work all day at a computer etc.

Friends try my glasses & come away with head spinning assuming I can't
see (because my prescription is mostly astigmas, i.e. localised
deformations of the eyeball), but I've had 210,000 hours of practise.

I can drive without glasses if needed, though I'd rather have them (and
my ABS), especially at night.

Quoted message said:

After a period of awareness raising, bring on the prosecutions.

agree with this bit though.

Danny Colyer said:

Hurrah, I'd like to see more of this:
<url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/wales/south_east/5277958.stm>

No excuse for SMIDSY!

Quoted message said:

I was struck by the comment that:
"in Gwent last year there were 47 deaths and the police consider only
three of those to be related to speed - the rest is driver error."

How is speed not driver error, then?

Excessive speed for the situation clearly _is_ driver error - I guess
their point is that most accidents are caused by mistakes other than
going too fast.

I don't like the statement either. If you're going to separate out
speeding, which is a very clear example of driver error, it seems
wrong to lump everything else together, which could include driving
while drunk - a very different type of error.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Quoted message said:

Excessive speed for the situation clearly _is_ driver error - I guess
their point is that most accidents are caused by mistakes other than
going too fast.

Of course if you are going fast enough to have a serious accident when
you make an error then speed is part of the problem at least.It is
always a factor in an an accident, except those where parked cars are
hit by meteors.
Perhaps they mean that there were 4 cases in which they could not avoid
noting that there was proof or admission of speeding over the limit.
Sounds like there may be a culture of speed excusers in that in that
force.Or the doctor is quoting selectively in order to mislead.That
could never happen could it?
TerryJ

Budstaff said:

How on earth can anyone who can't
pass the sight requirement not be aware of things being a little
difficult?

You'd be amazed.y son was born with retinal colobomas, which means he has
large blindspots in both eyes (in photos he has 'white eye' rather than 'red
eye' as there are no light-sensitive cells in the colobomas). But you'd
never guess from watching him. It's amazing what the brain can do with very
little information.

So perhaps it's not surprising that people whose vision is deteriorating
don't always notice straight away.

"Simon Bennett" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

How on earth can anyone who can't
pass the sight requirement not be aware of things being a little
difficult?

Quoted message said:

You'd be amazed.y son was born with retinal colobomas, which means he has
large blindspots in both eyes (in photos he has 'white eye' rather
than 'red
eye' as there are no light-sensitive cells in the colobomas). But you'd
never guess from watching him. It's amazing what the brain can do with very
little information.

Quoted message said:

So perhaps it's not surprising that people whose vision is deteriorating
don't always notice straight away.

Indeed. There's a difference between vision and perception and the
ability to notice a cyclist at 10 metres may relate rather poorly to the
ability to read a number plate at 25 metres.

I should imagine your son may have some difficulty with the printed page
but seems like any other lad on the football field.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Danny Colyer said:

Hurrah, I'd like to see more of this:
<url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/wales/south_east/5277958.stm>

I was struck by the comment that:
"in Gwent last year there were 47 deaths and the police consider only
three of those to be related to speed - the rest is driver error."

How is speed not driver error, then?

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

May because the police see speeding as a deliberate act as opposed to
an actual error of judgment. And therefore treat speeding as an act of
possible criminal intent and not an accident.

HA!

Made myself laugh.

Laters,

Marz

Quoted message said:

Of course if you are going fast enough to have a serious accident when
you make an error then speed is part of the problem at least.It is
always a factor in an an accident, except those where parked cars are
hit by meteors.

There are plenty of accidents that can't be attributed to speed. Yes,
the car has a speed, a non-negative velocity, but this is not a causal
factor in the accident.

eg - pulling out in front of another vehicle when it is too close.
eg - veering off course, due to distraction or inattention
eg - misjudging the size of your car in a tight spot
eg - failing to brake early or hard enough
eg - overtaking with insufficient room or visibility

In none of these cases would the driver be going too fast for the
conditions - so you can't attribute the accident to speed.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Quoted message said:

the car has a speed, a non-negative velocity, but this is not a causal
factor in the accident.

Yes it is.

Quoted message said:

eg - pulling out in front of another vehicle when it is too close.

could either vehicle have been going more slowly?were both moving?

Quoted message said:

eg - veering off course, due to distraction or inattention

what , while stationary or moving?Clearly speed is relevant

Quoted message said:

eg - misjudging the size of your car in a tight spot

Don't move it, no problem.

Quoted message said:

eg - failing to brake early or hard enough

If you are going slowly enough there is no significant crash

Quoted message said:

eg - overtaking with insufficient room or visibility

And a crash? well someones going too fast then.

Quoted message said:

In none of these cases would the driver be going too fast for the
conditions - so you can't attribute the accident to speed.

yes you can, some people don't want to.

TerryJ

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - pulling out in front of another vehicle when it is too close.

could either vehicle have been going more slowly?were both moving?

The car travelling along the main road was driving below the speed
limit, and had a clear view of the road ahead. He had no reason to
assume that the car stopped in the side road would pull out.

The car that pulled out of the side road was only travelling at 10mph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - veering off course, due to distraction or inattention

what , while stationary or moving?Clearly speed is relevant

Don't be obtuse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - misjudging the size of your car in a tight spot

Don't move it, no problem.

You've moved beyond obtuse into downright stupid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - failing to brake early or hard enough

If you are going slowly enough there is no significant crash

The point is that the speed was not unsafe. A vaguely competent and
moderately alert driver would have stopped in plenty of time from the
same speed - ergo, there was nothing dangerous about the speed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - overtaking with insufficient room or visibility

And a crash? well someones going too fast then.

No - the problem is that one driver was going too *slowly*...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In none of these cases would the driver be going too fast for the
conditions - so you can't attribute the accident to speed.

yes you can, some people don't want to.

If a vaguely competent and moderately alert driver could go at that
speed without being in danger, it's a safe speed. If one complete
numpty comes along and makes a mess of it, that is nothing to do with
the speed they were driving at, and everything to do with their
ineptitude, inattention or recklessness.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

In article <[email hidden]>

Stevie D said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - pulling out in front of another vehicle when it is too close.

could either vehicle have been going more slowly?were both moving?

The car travelling along the main road was driving below the speed
limit, and had a clear view of the road ahead. He had no reason to
assume that the car stopped in the side road would pull out.

The car that pulled out of the side road was only travelling at 10mph.

So if he'd been going 10mph slower the accident wouldn't have happened.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If a vaguely competent and moderately alert driver could go at that
speed without being in danger, it's a safe speed. If one complete
numpty comes along and makes a mess of it, that is nothing to do with
the speed they were driving at, and everything to do with their
ineptitude, inattention or recklessness.

Or he was driving at a speed inappropriate to his abilites.

Quoted message said:

The car travelling along the main road was driving below the speed
limit, and had a clear view of the road ahead. He had no reason to
assume that the car stopped in the side road would pull out.

The car that pulled out of the side road was only travelling at 10mph.

had he been travelling less quickly in anticipation of an an error by
the other driver a 58mph side on impact would have been avoided.How
about 60mph through a junction full of cyclists arriving to cross your
path?I saw a police driver do that recently.He thought his driving
beyond reproach.

Quoted message said:

Don't be obtuse.

This a geometric term isn't it?

The consequence of sun in the eyes is different at 30mph compared with
15mph past the school at 4pm.Do you not think speed is an important
cause of the dead child here?

Quoted message said:

You've moved beyond obtuse into downright stupid.

You're getting desperate now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - failing to brake early or hard enough

If you are going slowly enough there is no significant crash

The point is that the speed was not unsafe. A vaguely competent and
moderately alert driver would have stopped in plenty of time from the
same speed - ergo, there was nothing dangerous about the speed.

But this driver did not, therefore he should not be behind the wheel or
he should have chosen a lower speed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eg - overtaking with insufficient room or visibility

And a crash? well someones going too fast then.

No - the problem is that one driver was going too *slowly*...

So you must think that all vehicles must move at the speed chosen by
the fastest so that no overtaking is attempted.Would you devise a
signal for drivers to give to the vehicle in front that conveys 'speed
up or get off the road' and would it have legal force?

Quoted message said:

speed without being in danger, it's a safe speed. If one complete
numpty comes along and makes a mess of it, that is nothing to do with
the speed they were driving at, and everything to do with their
ineptitude, inattention or recklessness.

Unfortunately we are not able to choose the extent of our ineptitude so
must drive a speed that mitigates the damage or allows us to avoid the
crash.Innattention is more likely to cause a crash at higher
speed.Recklessness is speed.
TJ

Quoted message said:

had he been travelling less quickly in anticipation of an an error by
the other driver a 58mph side on impact would have been avoided.How
about 60mph through a junction full of cyclists arriving to cross your
path?I saw a police driver do that recently.He thought his driving
beyond reproach.

If you are travelling along a main road - whether on a car or on a
bike - and you see a car in a side road pull up at the give way lines,
you assume that it will not pull out in front of you. At some point,
you have to - otherwise you would never pass a side-turning with a
vehicle waiting in it.

Yes, there will be junctions where you have to slow down to well below
the speed limit to cross safely - there is one on my daily commute
where I slow from NSL to 45/50 (the notorious A19/A63 junction at
Barlby) because the visibility and volume of traffic makes a higher
speed unsafe - but at some point, you make a commitment and say "he's
seen me, he will wait", and continue on.

Or are you saying that whenever a vehicle T-bones a car coming out of
a side road, it's the vehicle on the main road's fault for going too
fast? You wouldn't say the same when a car pulls out in front of a
bike, and the bike hits the car, so why should it be any different
when it's a car on the main road?

Quoted message said:

The consequence of sun in the eyes is different at 30mph compared with
15mph past the school at 4pm.Do you not think speed is an important
cause of the dead child here?

Yes - clearly if you can't see because you are being dazzled by the
sun (or by other cars' headlights), you need to slow down. But as
that's the first time being dazzled has been mentioned in this
conversation, I'm not entirely sure what point you think it helps to
argue.

Quoted message said:

But this driver did not, therefore he should not be behind the wheel or
he should have chosen a lower speed

You still don't understand.

There can be many reasons why a driver's attention can be momentarily
diverted. I'm not saying that we should condone any of them, but it
happens - drivers are human, and occasionally make mistakes.

It could be anything - a strange noise from the car, a passenger
talking, an advert on a billboard, you see someone you know driving
the other way, etc - and if it happens just at the split-second where
you need to hit the brakes, you might cause an accident. If it had
happened at any other split-second, you would have reacted in time and
stopped or taken whatever action was necessary in time.

Quoted message said:

So you must think that all vehicles must move at the speed chosen by
the fastest so that no overtaking is attempted.Would you devise a
signal for drivers to give to the vehicle in front that conveys 'speed
up or get off the road' and would it have legal force?

Get an irony detector...

However - there was a semi-serious point behind my flippant remark.
While the most dangerous drivers are those few fastest, the next most
dangerous bracket are the slowest drivers. Driving well below the
prevailing speed for the road is bad practice - and is recognised as
such in the Highway Code. Common courtesy says that if you are holding
up a queue of traffic by driving very slowly, you should try to make
opportunities for other drivers to pass you.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately we are not able to choose the extent of our ineptitude so
must drive a speed that mitigates the damage or allows us to avoid the
crash.Innattention is more likely to cause a crash at higher
speed.Recklessness is speed.

Agreed. But there are times when a crash is unavoidable because of the
actions of another road user. There are times when, even taking into
account the need to drive at a speed well below the maximum safe speed
because of one's own ineptitude, a driver may have a momentary
brainfart and do something stupid.

Recklessness is so much more than speed.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Quoted message said:

you assume that it will not pull out in front of you. At some point,
you have to - otherwise you would never pass a side-turning with a
vehicle waiting in it.

You can choose a speed at which the risk of a serious accident is not
so great.Whatever speed that is you are accepting a level of risk.When
the crash happens you are partly to blame.
If the ambient speed is so high that serious crashes happen then it is
a factor in those crashes.There must be a general acceptance of
whatever risk that speed involves.Yuo may not mind the crashes that
that result and you may feel compelled to go with the flow, but you
will not be able to say your speed was not a cause because you felt it
to be compulsory.
If you assume that a car will not pull out and it does , you knew that
could happen so you are partly to blame because of your speed.Slowing
the traffic would reduce the risk .

Quoted message said:

Or are you saying that whenever a vehicle T-bones a car coming out of
a side road, it's the vehicle on the main road's fault for going too
fast? You wouldn't say the same when a car pulls out in front of a
bike, and the bike hits the car, so why should it be any different
when it's a car on the main road?

Quoted message said:

The consequence of sun in the eyes is different at 30mph compared with
15mph past the school at 4pm.Do you not think speed is an important
cause of the dead child here?
conversation, I'm not entirely sure what point you think it helps to

argue.

Ok no sun, as actually in this case, just speed, which was not
mentioned in the police report because the child stepped out and the
car was not breaking the limit.Well he could not have done really at
that place. .

Quoted message said:

There can be many reasons why a driver's attention can be momentarily
diverted.

Like sun.

Quoted message said:

It could be anything - a strange noise from the car, a passenger
talking, an advert on a billboard, you see someone you know driving
the other way, etc - and if it happens just at the split-second where
you need to hit the brakes, you might cause an accident. If it had
happened at any other split-second, you would have reacted in time and
stopped or taken whatever action was necessary in time.

So drive less fast and you will be less likely to cause a crash when it
happens.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you must think that all vehicles must move at the speed chosen by
the fastest so that no overtaking is attempted.Would you devise a
signal for drivers to give to the vehicle in front that conveys 'speed
up or get off the road' and would it have legal force?

Quoted message said:

dangerous bracket are the slowest drivers. Driving well below the
prevailing speed for the road is bad practice - and is recognised as
such in the Highway Code.

But the danger will still be related to the speed of the vehicles that
crash.It must be possible to negotiate an obstacle safely, whether it
is moving or not.It can be a daunting prospect if the speed of the
oncoming vehicles is too high or you. insist on overtaking
dangerously..

Quoted message said:

a driver may have a momentary
brainfart and do something stupid.

And at that time his speed will be part of the cause and effect of the
accident

Recklessness is speed.

Quoted message said:

Recklessness is so much more than speed.

These statements are not contradictory.
TJ

Quoted message said:

If you assume that a car will not pull out and it does , you knew that
could happen so you are partly to blame because of your speed.Slowing
the traffic would reduce the risk .

But it wouldn't just be "slowing". Unless you stop - or slow down so
much that the waiting car can pull out anyway - there is the risk that
just as you are about to pass the junction the car will pull out into
your path. You would never be able to pass a junction with a waiting
car in it, or a junction with restricted visibility (in case there was
an approaching car).

Quoted message said:

So drive less fast and you will be less likely to cause a crash when it
happens.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you would only ever
drive at walking pace, because to go any faster would incur a higher
risk of a crash - despite the fact that such risk would be so close to
zero as to make no difference.

You can't just say "slow down, and you'll be safer", because it is (a)
completely impractical, and (b) utterly wrong.

Crashes happened while the Red Flag Act was in force - just how slowly
do you think we should drive?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recklessness is speed.

Recklessness is so much more than speed.

These statements are not contradictory.

Repeating the "speed kills" mantra like an automaton, without
recognising that there are other far more serious causes of accidents,
does you no favours, and severely harms the cause of the road safety
lobby.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Quoted message said:

Repeating the "speed kills" mantra like an automaton, without
recognising that there are other far more serious causes of accidents,
does you no favours, and severely harms the cause of the road safety
lobby.

Only you are obsessed with speed.I wonder why.Has someone been getting
points?
I suppose you are aware of the association of speeding points with
involvement in fatal accidents.

I have not said at any point that there are no other causes.It is your
denial of the importance of speed in the cause and severity of crashes
that is against logic.

If you insist on your right to move at speeds that cause casualties
that does not mean that you are blameless because you think you have
the right do that.

If ,as you maintain, drivers must drive at speeds that involve risk
then I take it that you agree that increased speed increases risk.It
should therefore be cited among the causes of most crashes.

I have to go back to the real world now.Good bye
TJ

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Repeating the "speed kills" mantra like an automaton, without
recognising that there are other far more serious causes of accidents,
does you no favours, and severely harms the cause of the road safety
lobby.

Only you are obsessed with speed.I wonder why.Has someone been getting
points?
I suppose you are aware of the association of speeding points with
involvement in fatal accidents.

I have not said at any point that there are no other causes.It is your
denial of the importance of speed in the cause and severity of crashes
that is against logic.

If you insist on your right to move at speeds that cause casualties
that does not mean that you are blameless because you think you have
the right do that.

If ,as you maintain, drivers must drive at speeds that involve risk
then I take it that you agree that increased speed increases risk.It
should therefore be cited among the causes of most crashes.

I have to go back to the real world now.Good bye

Are you sure you'll be able to cope there? All those nasty people
driving/cycling/running faster than walking pace?

Whenever we interact with anything, we do so on the basis of risk
assessment. If you do not accept this principle then you _cannot_ use the
roads. Speed is excessive when a consensus of reasonable people agrees that
this is so. In general the law provides a useful guideline to this, with the
caveat that conditions often reduce the safe speed less than the legal
limit.

Your argument is reductio ad absurdum - 'the slower you go the less the
chance of an accident, and the lesser the consequences should one occur -
ergo stationary vehicles are the only safe ones'. To suggest, as you have,
that as parties involved in accidents are moving, and if they were moving
slower they wouldn't have accidents, therefore all accidents are caused by
speed has the sort of logic found in the works of Lewis Carroll, and
actually hinders useful discussion on the subject.

I really can't work out if you are

A) a zealot
B) an idiot
C) a troll

Good luck in the real world if your're A or B. Good riddance if C