Scarecrow stops traffic

[snopes]

A nearsighted driver backed up traffic as she repeatedly attempted to wave a "pedestrian" across a busy intersection.

However, the pedestrian she was trying to assist was a decorative scarecrow placed in a planter in front of Automatic Transmission Specialists.

http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs...=2009909180375

[Eddylizard]

She wasn't wearing her glasses?

It's an offence here to drive with uncorrected defective vision. The reasons are obvious.

[Brad from Georgia]

Oh, it was awful! The car hit me and knocked my legs over THERE, and my chest over THERE....

[purpleiguana]

"She told us that she didn't have her glasses on at the time and I told her that maybe she shouldn't have been driving without them."

Gee, ya think?

I mean, sure, you don't have to legally be 20/20 to drive... I think you can be 20/60 or 20/80 (or whatever the decimal system equivalent is) and still be legally okay to drive without correction. Shoot, I'm incredibly myopic and I probably could drive without my glasses if it was broad daylight and it was a dire emergency (because I wouldn't drive without my glasses unless it was a dire emergency), but if I got pulled over without my glasses, I'm sure I'd get a ticket. My driver's license says quite clearly that I require corrective lenses.

I don't know if this lady could legally get tracked down and given a ticket for that particular incident, but I would certain hope she could be found and at least given a talking-to about her potentially dangerous behavior. She could have caused an accident, and for what? Didn't want to take the time to find them? Didn't want to be a four-eyes? She was only going out "for a minute?" Please.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by Brad from Georgia

Oh, it was awful! The car hit me and knocked my legs over THERE, and my chest over THERE....

Oh, that's you all over!

[kitap]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

She wasn't wearing her glasses?

It's an offence here to drive with uncorrected defective vision. The reasons are obvious.

I remember being warned in driving class in high school that it's against teh law to drive without wearing your glasses if your driver's license indicates that you have them. I forget the penalties.

Not a problem for me as I can't find my car without my glasses.

[Gayle]

Yes, it's illegal here, too.

And on behalf of pedestrians everywhere, thanks, but no thanks. If I'm at a crosswalk, yes, please obey the law and stop to let me across. If I'm not and I'm just waiting for traffic to clear, please don't stop. Just because you stop, doesn't mean that the cars coming the other way are going to. Or that someone behind you isn't going to get impatient and whip around you. You are not helping.

[Latiam]

Originally Posted by kitap

I remember being warned in driving class in high school that it's against teh law to drive without wearing your glasses if your driver's license indicates that you have them. I forget the penalties.

Not a problem for me as I can't find my car without my glasses.

Not exactly, at least here. The license renewal asks you if your optometrist has ever told you you need your glasses to drive.

I have glasses, but do not need them to drive, even though I'm nearsighted. It's not really that much - I wear them to the movies and if I was still in university lectures I'd wear them for that. He told me I could wear them to read and to drive if I wanted, but they're not necessary.

To be honest, since my prescription was reduced, I hardly wear them at all.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

She wasn't wearing her glasses?

It's as if she and the scarecrow only had one brain between them ...

[Mycroft]

Part of the UK driving test (the first element of the practical test, before you get into the car) is to read the number plate of a car at a certain distance. No other eye test is required ever for non-commercial drivers; only a declaration of health at intervals after 70 (younger and more often for some medical conditions.

[Just Jocko]

Originally Posted by purpleiguana

I don't know if this lady could legally get tracked down and given a ticket for that particular incident, but I would certain hope she could be found and at least given a talking-to about her potentially dangerous behavior. She could have caused an accident, and for what? Didn't want to take the time to find them? Didn't want to be a four-eyes? She was only going out "for a minute?" Please.

But if she was able to pass the vision portion of her driver's license test (and at subsequent renewals, if required), then there would be no such requirement. And if there's no restriction listed on her license, then she can't be ticketed for not wearing her glasses.

[purpleiguana]

Originally Posted by Just Jocko

But if she was able to pass the vision portion of her driver's license test (and at subsequent renewals, if required), then there would be no such requirement. And if there's no restriction listed on her license, then she can't be ticketed for not wearing her glasses.

If she was able to pass the vision test without wearing her glasses, then I'm guessing she would have been able to tell it was a scarecrow and not a pedestrian... and if she wasn't, that she might have said something like, "Wow, that's very realistic" instead of "I don't have my glasses on."

If she needed her glasses to pass the vision test, there's probably a notation on her driver's license that says she requires corrective lenses to drive.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Part of the UK driving test (the first element of the practical test, before you get into the car) is to read the number plate of a car at a certain distance. No other eye test is required ever for non-commercial drivers; only a declaration of health at intervals after 70 (younger and more often for some medical conditions.

The police can also request that you perform the test at the roadside.

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/transport/eyesight.page

The police are allowed to stop a driver and test their eyesight if they have any reason to think he or she cannot meet the legal standards required for driving, which are:

•Drivers who need contact lenses or glasses to correct their vision must always wear them when driving.
•Driving with uncorrected defective vision is an offence and there is a potential fine of £1,000 for those caught out. Added to that is the threat of 3 penalty points and possible disqualification for those found breaking the law.
•Drivers should be able to read a number plate from a distance of 20.5 metres (which is about 5 car lengths) in good light. If a driver is asked to do this and cannot meet the required standard, they are committing an offence and as a result their insurance may be invalidated.

There is however nothing on the licence that says you have to wear corrective lenses.

[Joostik]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

There is however nothing on the licence that says you have to wear corrective lenses.

I was told that, with so many people wearing contact lenses instead of glasses making it hard for the police to check if you are wearing them or not, the notation has become obsolete for standard European licenses.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Joostik

I was told that, with so many people wearing contact lenses instead of glasses making it hard for the police to check if you are wearing them or not, the notation has become obsolete for standard European licenses.

Add to that that as at least in the UK there is no need to actually carry your licence, it would be pointless. The poilce can of course get all your licence details on the radio within a couple of minutes or less. They can also issue you with a slip (for want of a better word) requesting that you produce your licence and/or any other vehicle documents within 14 days at a police station of your choosing. Failure to do so is an offence. So I suppose that's moot.

The procedure is as I said, if you are stopped, and they have suspicion, they will ask you to read a clean number plate at a minimum 20.5 meters. If you fail that, then you could be in trouble. However the law does state "in good light" so that is open to interpretation if it gets to court. So it doesn't matter if you are wearing contacts instead of spectacles when you are stopped, if you cannot read the plate from 20.5 metres away, that's when you can be charged with committing the offence. IIRC you get three goes at it, but don't quote me on that.

I would agree with anyone that it may not be an entirely satisfactory state of affairs, but then I would argue that a sobriety test is quite ridiculous when intoximeters are available for £100 - maybe £300 for a law enforcement grade model.

ETA Take a simulation of the UK eyesight test here. I actually passed just about without my glasses, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to drive without them.

[kitap]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

ETA Take a simulation of the UK eyesight test here. I actually passed just about without my glasses, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to drive without them.

In Wisconsin- at least when I lived there, and this is where the story took place, you had one of those horrible vision tests at the DMV when getting your license renewed, which was every four years.

You could also ask your own eye doctor to fill out the info for you, and I had that done once. She had a horrific story to tell about the time she was getting her own license renewed and while she was waiting for the photo a strange man came up to her and thanked her. Why? Because she said the answers just loudly and clearly enough that he memorized them and used them to pass his own exam. She said she told him "here's my business card; come see me."

Here in Arizona once you get your driver's license it's good until you're 65. I imagine there are a lot of people who should be wearing glasses who don't because their license doesn't say they need to and they're too vain or whatever to wear them anyhow.

[Just Jocko]

Originally Posted by kitap

You could also ask your own eye doctor to fill out the info for you, and I had that done once. She had a horrific story to tell about the time she was getting her own license renewed and while she was waiting for the photo a strange man came up to her and thanked her. Why? Because she said the answers just loudly and clearly enough that he memorized them and used them to pass his own exam. She said she told him "here's my business card; come see me."

He'd be screwed here in MD -- they change up the info after each driver.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by kitap

In Wisconsin- at least when I lived there, and this is where the story took place, you had one of those horrible vision tests at the DMV when getting your license renewed, which was every four years.

Just how horrible can a vision test be? What do they do to the motorist that makes it such an ordeal?

Here in Arizona once you get your driver's license it's good until you're 65. I imagine there are a lot of people who should be wearing glasses who don't because their license doesn't say they need to and they're too vain or whatever to wear them anyhow.

For the record no snark at you kitap, but at those who don't wear corrective lenses. I'm launching off of this piece of your post.

Ah vanity, of course, because it's not as if you can take your glasses off once you arrive at the destination and park, and of course everyone else on the road is gazing intently at the driver wearing the glasses thinking "how unattractive."

Of course vanity doesn't permit me to put myself in a position where because I couldn't see the road ahead properly I potentially could cause an accident which disfigures my face.

[kitap]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Just how horrible can a vision test be? What do they do to the motorist that makes it such an ordeal?

It's the stress that makes it horrible. What if I get one wrong? What if it's two? What if my eyes have gotten really bad in the last four years?

I'm a worrywart.

[Eddylizard]

If g-your vision had deteriorated so much in the last for years to impair your driving, then suely it would also impair your everyday life to the point you would have visited an optometricist (sp?).

I don't know what the driver center or whatever it's called actually do to test you because our system is vastly different, but it cannot be any more stringent that a full eye exam at an optometricist (can I write optician because it's easier for me).

If you fail - well you fail. Then see an optician. Get the glasses or the contacts and go back. You might be off the road until the glasses or contacts get made; a week at most. Better than colliding with someone or something because you didn't see them/it. That's even more stressful