Safe Speed Forums

Having checked 'Road Accidents Scotland' 2005, 'uncorrected defective eyesight' was cited as a possible contributory factor in 7 crashes in the whole of 2005. It wasn't recorded as 'very likely' in any crashes.

The total crash count with contibutory factors was 13,178, making it a possible factor in 0.053% of crashes, or around 1 in 1,900 crashes.

The whole idea that there are a load of Mr Magoos out there driving blindly just isn't supported by the crash stats.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Agreed.

However, I've seen enough examples of poor driving where I suspect the driver has below the minimum standard of eyesight. Most often, the driver is elderly and so poor eyesight isn't the only possibility (I'm convinced there's a significant number on prescribed drug cocktails that shouldn't drive).

That said, the antics such drivers get up to might seem dangerous but they're usually just inconvenience. For example, a few weeks ago I was driving on an extra-urban road after dark and the driver in front of me was doing about 50 mph. Every time a vehicle approached from the other direction, the driver slowed right down to below 30 mph and then sped up back to 45 or 50 after the oncoming vehicle had passed. As soon as I could do so safely, I passed that car, which then sped up to keep station behind me for five or so miles into the next town. I have very strong suspicions that the driver suffered from night blindness (which is reportable). It might be that other drivers are mitigating any danger visually impaired drivers pose, which is a possible reason that visual impairment doesn't figure in the accident statistics.

I'm rambling - sorry, but I hope you know what I mean!

_________________
Will