Southend RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Why I want drivers to take an eye test

Gareth Gault suffered poor health for years after being hurt in an accident Gareth Gault suffered poor health for years after being hurt in an accident

A MANseriously hurt in a car accident involving a driver with poor eyesight is urging compulsory eye tests for all motorists.

Gareth Gault, 42, of the Grove, Southend, is backing a national campaign to force drivers to be tested before they are allowed a licence.

Mr Gault was hit, at the age of seven, by a car driven by a motorist wearing an eyepatch.

He ended up being dragged 150 yards along the road by the car, and spent eight months in hospital.

He said: “Once I left hospital, I was wheelchair-bound and then forced to walk around with callipers and crutches before I was finally able to walk again unaided, aged 15. It was a traumatic time for me.

“Another side-effect is the fact I developed early-onset arthritis in my early twenties, because of the crash. The accident is still causing me trouble now.”

Laser eye corrective surgery company Ultralase and motoring charity Brake are running a national petition, calling for a change to the law.

Mr Gault said: “It’s very easy for people to say, ‘oh I’m just popping down the road’ and think nothing will happen because they might only be making a short journey.

“But it only takes a split second for an accident to happen, which can end up ruining lives or, even worse, killing someone.”

In July, Dr Aloke Basu, of Burges Road, Thorpe Bay, was jailed for two years after being convicted of killing 74-year-old Shirley Watkins through dangerous driving as a result of poor eyesight.

The 66-year-old GP was suffering from cataracts in both eyes, chronic glaucoma and short-sightedness.

He hit Mrs Watkins on Eastern Avenue on February 5, 2010.

Before the incident, Dr Basu had twice been asked to contact the DVLA about his eyesight problems and had failed tests at the scene of the accident.

Comments(14)

Jack0 says...
9:28pm Mon 6 Feb 12

Last I heard you had to read a registration plate at 20m to pass the driving test so a test already exists. No surprise that companies in the eye care business would want more tests, they would benefit from the extra custom. Eye tests would have to be repeated at regular intervals to be effective. Forcing people with perfectly good vision to have expensive eye tests just because they are drivers is ludicrous. In the case of the two examples given such rules would have made no difference because they were obviously undergoing treatment and had had eyetests. The law already requires people to wear glasses if they need them to see well enough to drive. The problem is enforcing the law. Whenever the police take a Breathalyzer test at the scene of an accident or when motorists are stopped for speeding they should also routinely repeat the registration plate eye test, with the driver wearing glasses only if he was doing so while driving. They should have the power to impose penalties if it cant be done. That would be a more effective measure.

fredfoot says...
9:46pm Mon 6 Feb 12

A lot of it is to due with trust and honesty, if the person driving knows they have a health problem ie. eyes heart etc they should get it seen to, in extreme cases like myself I notified the DVLA straight away after a time I was passed fit to carry on driving.

Trainman says...
10:19pm Mon 6 Feb 12

I make a point in getting an eye test EVERY year, regardless of any changes.

Some drivers need to be able to READ, then learn speed limits are there for OUR safety, the same as KEEPING their distance from the car in front, and NOT Tailgate.

John the resonator says...
10:59pm Mon 6 Feb 12

Recently I had my first eye test, having been feeling I could not read road signs at a distance as I used to be able. I thought it was a minor problem. The test was such a wake up call. The assessor told me my eyes were 'borderline' now but any more deterioration I would be held responsible in the event of an accident and the insurance would not pay out. Naturally I got the specs I needed and won't even 'pop down the road' without them. Problem with eyesight (and hearing) is it deteriorates by small increments over time and we tend to compensate or not even really take enough note. I wondered how many other people there were driving around not recognising the problem.

Therefore I support this campaign.

With respect to the first poster on here, yes I had that number plate recognition check when I had my driving test over 40 YEARS ago and repeating the test after an accident is too late. I am all for taking preventive measures.

Nebs says...
11:16pm Mon 6 Feb 12

Make it obligatory for opticians to report problems to both the client and DVLC.

Roy_Baty says...
8:02am Tue 7 Feb 12

A condition like glaucoma usually goes unnoticed until diagnosed. Vision loss is gradual and starts at the periphery of the field of vision. This is the area that detects movement to the sides, movement like pedestrians stepping off pavements, cyclists riding along the side of the road.
Everyone who drives should have at the very least a yearly eye test in order to retain their licence.
I get my eyes checked annually, and it isn't expensive.
So I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Gault.

clairebartlett says...
8:43am Tue 7 Feb 12

boyracer - you are an idiot! This story has nothing to do with the fact that he wears glasses!

I completely agree with this campaign. There is no reason why anyone should have a problem with having an eye test, unless they have something to hide!

bigboy57 says...
9:32am Tue 7 Feb 12

boyracer_20yrs old wrote:
What a loads of rubbish. He says he needs motorists to watch out, when his wearing glasses. Maybe he should watch when his crossing a road.
you say you are 20 yrs old yes with the mind of a 3_4 yr old and thats pushing it!

PJR121 says...
11:21am Tue 7 Feb 12

He want's an eye test before drivers are allowed a licence - that is already a mandatory part of a driving test - being able to see a registration place from 20m away.

If you need glasses to do this - it is recorded, and when you send for your licence the test certificate you send will mean this information is recorded to your licence.

I recently misplaced my photocard licence, and therefore ordered a new one online. I missed the box that asked if I needed glasses while driving - and it wouldn't let me proceed as the details did not match the DVLA database. I always wear my glasses while driving - I needed them when I passed, therefore I do now.

Unfortunately eyesight can deteriorate over time. This is where a test should be required, however, having to pay for a test puts many off.

The Cater Wood Creeper says...
5:23pm Tue 7 Feb 12

I'd like pedestrians to have a 'looking where you're going' or a 'walking across a road without having your stupid mug glued to your smartphone screen' test....

girlie71 says...
8:44pm Tue 7 Feb 12

The Cater Wood Creeper wrote:
I'd like pedestrians to have a 'looking where you're going' or a 'walking across a road without having your stupid mug glued to your smartphone screen' test....
hear hear .... and also the " i will walk across the road because i am invincible and being hit by a car wont hurt me cos im hard "

Jack0 says...
9:14pm Tue 7 Feb 12

If opticians want business they could introduce a quick and free eye test for drivers, the equivalent of reading a number plate at 20m. If drivers failed they would know they needed glasses and would pay for a test to determine the prescription. Those who don't can walk away without any expense. If the government want to make it compulsory they have to gather some statistics to show that poor eyesight is a common cause if accidents. It would be easy to obtain such statistics by testing more drivers at the scene of an accident. If they have not even taken the trouble to do this can we really be expected to believe it is a serious enough problem? A couple of anecdotal examples where the drivers had already been tested and advised to contact DVLA does not make a case.

Roy_Baty says...
8:14am Thu 9 Feb 12

Vision isn't just about what's in front. Drivers have to have good peripheral vision too. Being able to read a number plate at 20m won't pick up deteriorating peripheral vision.

I am at a loss to understand resistance to this idea. It is on us all to make roads safe for all, after all we all use them.

Eye tests are not expensive and don't take long.

Better to get one than end up in the dock on a manslaughter charge.

John the resonator says...
7:43pm Thu 9 Feb 12

Roy_Baty wrote:
Vision isn't just about what's in front. Drivers have to have good peripheral vision too. Being able to read a number plate at 20m won't pick up deteriorating peripheral vision.

I am at a loss to understand resistance to this idea. It is on us all to make roads safe for all, after all we all use them.

Eye tests are not expensive and don't take long.

Better to get one than end up in the dock on a manslaughter charge.
Quite agree, people often respond to things like this as if it were an infringement of their civil liberties.

Well if it is about the liberty to kill other people on the road then I am 100% in favour of a bit of of infringement.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree