Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Driving requirement
#1
From another thread:
arocarty Wrote:
Daniel Wrote:For night driving, you should use full strength glasses. That won't help you improve your eyesight, but it may prevent a bad accident.

Interesting. If you examine the requirements of every state in the US, not ONE requires 20/20 for an unrestricted license; majority are 20/40, in the Better eye, some are actually 20/50, 20/60. And an unrestricted license means one can drive at night. These standards have been set by medical advisory boards, made up of optometrists, ophthamologists, physicians, cardiologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, public safety officials, etc.
The legal standard is ultimately set by lawmakers. Lawmakers are elected. Even with glasses, some people can't see better than 20/40 or even a bit lower. When that is a substantial percentage of the voters, what are lawmakers supposed to do? The fact that there are drivers on the road with compromised vision is all the more reason not to compromise yours.

I don't know how dangerous it really is to drive at night with 20/40 or 20/60 or whatever. My point is that you shouldn't take the legal requirements as proof that it's safe. I did read a discussion in which an eye doctor said that if everyone drove with exactly 20/40, there would be many more night accidents.
Reply
#2
This is an interesting thought. I have vision whose average is 20/50 and at its worst is 20/60 but I can very easily get it down to 20/40. Even with this, I am only able to see the text clearly of the street signs when I am 60ft or so away from them. I have been waiting until I have recovered before I get my drivers license because if you don't know the roads ahead of time it would be difficult to get around without normal vision.
Reply
#3
Tsukiomi Wrote:This is an interesting thought. I have vision whose average is 20/50 and at its worst is 20/60 but I can very easily get it down to 20/40. Even with this, I am only able to see the text clearly of the street signs when I am 60ft or so away from them. I have been waiting until I have recovered before I get my drivers license because if you don't know the roads ahead of time it would be difficult to get around without normal vision.
Good choice. It does seem rather foolish to drive while seeing only half or a third as far as you could. If the Bates method ever goes mainstream, I'm afraid we'll see a large upsurge in accidents, due to drivers not wearing glasses or wearing reduced prescriptions. Unless self-driving cars are the norm by then.
Reply
#4
Daniel, here are my thoughts on this topic.

1. I am willing to bet that self-driving cars will become mainstream before the Bates method does, so no need for concern there. Wink I'd say that the fully autonomous car will likely be up and about within a decade, although that is pure speculation with no scientific bearing whatsoever.

2. Regarding dangerous driving, you bring up a good point, but I should perhaps suggest that if my intuition and what I have heard is true (meaning that I haven't actually gone and collected the data), most accidents come about from distracted driving - from drinking, cell phone use, or other distractions. It is also worth mentioning that some people have unsafe driving practices that are, at least in my opinion, of more concern than less than 20/20 vision.

3. On a personal note, I would like to mention that I have driven with 20/20 correction (with contacts and with glasses), and with less than 20/20 correction, and say what you will, but I have found myself much more comfortable (and therefore, more alert) with the undercorrected lenses. The only benefit to 20/20 vision in my case is that it would allow me to see signs and other things that are much further away. In practice though, I rarely see that far to begin with. I don't think there are many people who practice defensive driving to the point that seeing 20/20 becomes relevant. Again, just an opinion, but when you watch people with perfect vision changing lanes without signaling or looking over their shoulder, the 20/20 part becomes an afterthought.

4. Final thoughts. Why is 20/20 such a special standard? Who's to say that you'd be safe if everyone on the road had 20/20 vision? Why not 20/15 or 20/10? Not really meant to be answered; just food for thought. In general, the better your vision, the more likely you will be to notice things both near and far, but I think that the dynamics of corrective lenses plays an interesting role here. I am sure that there are others out there who, like me, strain mightily under the influence of 20/20 corrective lenses, to the point that the vision isn't really 20/20 anymore after a while and the mind is also under a severe strain. I'd say that what is most important is that one honestly judges for him/herself what is necessary.
Reply
#5
Daniel Wrote:I don't know how dangerous it really is to drive at night with 20/40 or 20/60 or whatever. My point is that you shouldn't take the legal requirements as proof that it's safe

In the initial post, you said that "For night driving, you should use full strength glasses." Yet you are stating here that you don't know how dangerous it really is. Why, then, advise someone when you are unsure? Just because you think it is (unsafe, a compromise, or foolish), does not make it so. And just because someone has 20/20 or better vision, does NOT necessarily make them a safe driver. There is no evidence or any published reports that support the opinion that 20/40 is unsafe, under any conditions. In fact, the 20/40 standard has been established by most states because one is still considered to have a safety margin under more adverse conditions, not because 20/50 is considered unsafe. Some states will allow even worse (as 20/80, 20/100) corrected best vision under certain restrictions. Driving safety does not depend so much on what is seen, but rather on how quickly and how adequately drivers respond to what is seen. There are many factors that go into that, and they're not just about visual acuity (such as field of vision, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, color vision, night vision). Also, functional vision pertains to how the person functions, not how the eye functions (their skills, physical/cognitive abilities, experience, disabilities, reading ability, non-visual medical conditions, etc.)
The point is, it's a gross oversimplification and presumption to state that it is unsafe to drive with a visual acuity of 20/40. As Pikachu mentions, if one is really concerned about the safety of the roads, there's a lot of other more worthy elements screaming out for help. People driving recklessly, at high speeds, blowing through lights and stop signs, weaving in and out, cutting people off, tailgating; driving distracted - people texting, sexting, talking on phones, reading books, putting on makeup, driving under the influence of alcohol and other substances, driving unsafe vehicles not maintained properly, the list can go on and on...
Many of these things, while having no effect of acuity, reduce a person's ability to respond adequately, and that is what ultimately contributes to unsafe driving.

Pikachu Wrote:I am willing to bet that self-driving cars will become mainstream before the Bates method does, so no need for concern there.
I'd bet cars will fly and float on water before Bates goes mainstream!

Daniel Wrote:The legal standard is ultimately set by lawmakers. Lawmakers are elected. Even with glasses, some people can't see better than 20/40 or even a bit lower. When that is a substantial percentage of the voters, what are lawmakers supposed to do?

Cars will fly and float before this scenario plays out. Stay tuned.
Reply
#6
Just got my temporary drivers license for the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. Man said I passed the eyesight test perfectly. It was easy!

I was very worried about being able to do this since experiencing many problems from the neck injury in 2009, worried I might not be exactly perfect. I still get a little balance problem sometimes and stress. So many competitors on the internet taunting, hoping I would fail... Stand in line for a hour, 'what ifing...'.

But the Bates Method really worked, again, through the years.

I used all the practices in Thomas Quackenbush's two books, everything I have learned over the years, and clear sight occurred effortlessly.
Especially helpful was the Sketch, Breathe, Blink chapter and other practices in Thomas Quackenbush's books and all of Ophthalmologist Bates variety of training, methods, relaxation techniques and other Natural Vision doctors, teachers books; Emily, Lierman, Harold Peppard, Harry Benjamin, Aldous Huxley, Goodrich, Corbett, Hacket, John Ott, Liberman, The left/right hemisphere guys, Alexander techniques... Many sucessful people on the iblindness Forum gave me new and old ways of perfecting my training. So many more teachers, can’t list them all.

Thanks to Nancy for the paper eyechart test idea. I kept going into shopping malls in MA, Boston and found some opticians that had paper charts. I tested, practiced there until better than 20/20 all the time; for every visit. Then went to RMV and did the test in the machine.

Temporary license is posted on my website and the new will be mailed soon and posted. Age 57 in March. No presbyopia, No Myopia...

http://cleareyesight-batesmethod.info/id95.html
Reply
#7
(01-27-2014, 02:24 PM)clarknight Wrote: Age 57 in march. No presbyopia, No Myopia...
No opias...that's wonderful news, Clark. I practiced a lot of long swings/shifting in the pool today. I went swimming and there was a pretty lady doing laps next to me. My eyes felt really good afterwards.
Reply
#8
(01-27-2014, 11:02 PM)lou_deg Wrote:
(01-27-2014, 02:24 PM)clarknight Wrote: Age 57 in march. No presbyopia, No Myopia...
No opias...that's wonderful news, Clark. I practiced a lot of long swings/shifting in the pool today. I went swimming and there was a pretty lady doing laps next to me. My eyes felt really good afterwards.

HA-HA!!

Thanks Lou.

If I was younger I'd jump in that pool with ya, beat the crud out of the lady and hit on ya.

What's a opias. Did I make another ABC boo-boo?

(01-28-2014, 05:20 AM)clarknight Wrote:
(01-27-2014, 11:02 PM)lou_deg Wrote:
(01-27-2014, 02:24 PM)clarknight Wrote: Age 57 in march. No presbyopia, No Myopia...
No opias...that's wonderful news, Clark. I practiced a lot of long swings/shifting in the pool today. I went swimming and there was a pretty lady doing laps next to me. My eyes felt really good afterwards.

HA-HA!!

Thanks Lou.

If I was younger I'd jump in that pool with ya, beat the crud out of the lady and hit on ya.

What's a opias. Did I make another ABC boo-boo?

Oh, I get it now; opias as in myo or pres.

The astigm and strabismus from the neck injury caused by the crazy chiropractor is also gone.

I just saw a news show about a man that was injured. His family thinks he was abused in a nursing home. He was covered with bruises and docs said his neck bones are all misaligned. I will try to find the clip on YouTube and post here in a strabismus section; on of his eyes is crossed inward big time.
One of those evil nursing home ladies did it??
Reply
#9
Thinking of buying one of those vision test machines for people to practice on. Did a search to buy and learn how they work;

Here's a search and note the interesting posts by people who took the test on one topic. Some pass, some not, many see the images blurry or 'weird' but have clear sight when look on a chart, sign on the wall and their eye doctor says they have perfect sight, not need glasses... ;

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ne+work%3F

http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/f-body-l...ce-506785/

One man says some numbers looked fuzzy, double but can read them. Then the test to look at a sentence on the wall, at the real distance was perfect clear. Which machine is best; the eye doctors or the DMV's? Maybe buy both and compare.

I don't like those machines, its not a true test.
Reply

TEST YOUR VISION AT HOME!
- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now