Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve yet?
I have an annual eye anyway, but will this test be a separate one, any different from the usual one?
Personally, I test myself probably twice a week, on random number plates
of vehicles in car parks when the requirement of good daylight is extant,
and I also test myself daily using an Amsler grid:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve
yet?
Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve
yet?
Same as for a driving test maybe? i.e. read a numberplate at 5 car lengths
Andy Burns wrote:
read a numberplate at 5 car lengths
ItrCOs a very crude test.
My mother continued to pass the test even withMy mum did basically give-up (but kept her licence) and they got rid of
fairly advanced macular degeneration when she couldnrCOt read the dashboard instruments and really wasnrCOt safe to drive.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve
yet?
Same as for a driving test maybe? i.e. read a numberplate at 5 car lengths >>
ItrCOs a very crude test. My mother continued to pass the test even with fairly advanced macular degeneration when she couldnrCOt read the dashboard instruments and really wasnrCOt safe to drive.
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for obtaining
a driving licence.
I have used glasses for driving for several years now. Bi-focal so I
can read the 20m number plate and instruments on the dashboard.
They allow normal sideways peripheral vision to spot pedestrians
waiting at road crossings etc. Doesn't help with night time LED flat
beam headlights:-(
On 07/01/2026 07:47, Tim+ wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve >>>> yet?
Same as for a driving test maybe? i.e. read a numberplate at 5 car lengths >>>
ItrCOs a very crude test. My mother continued to pass the test even with
fairly advanced macular degeneration when she couldnrCOt read the dashboard >> instruments and really wasnrCOt safe to drive.
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for obtaining
a driving licence.
I have used glasses for driving for several years now. Bi-focal so I can
read the 20m number plate and instruments on the dashboard. They allow
normal sideways peripheral vision to spot pedestrians waiting at road crossings etc. Doesn't help with night time LED flat beam headlights:-(
On 06/01/2026 23:31, Spike wrote:
Personally, I test myself probably twice a week, on random number plates
of vehicles in car parks when the requirement of good daylight is extant,
and I also test myself daily using an Amsler grid:
Really?
I assume this relates to some medical condition you have.
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve yet?
I have an annual eye anyway, but will this test be a separate one, any different from the usual one?
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve
yet?
I have an annual eye anyway, but will this test be a separate one, any different from the usual one?
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several tens
of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view mirror
helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's side) mirror.
On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch for the mirror to
get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me. It might be illegal
to drive with the mirror in that position even for a short time; I'm not sure.
On 07/01/2026 09:00, Jeff Layman wrote:
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several
tens of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view
mirror helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's
side) mirror. On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch for
the mirror to get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me. It
might be illegal to drive with the mirror in that position even for a
short time; I'm not sure.
I don't find car headlights a problem. They are transient, so as long as
I can make myself look away from the beam for a couple of seconds, I'm
fine.
What does affect my eyes badly is being dazzled by the brake lights of a
car stopped ahead of me in a queue. I've never been good with highly monochromatic lights. I find the old low-pressure sodium lights (intense orange) very tiring to drive by (high-pressure pale-peach sodium, at
road junctions, are a lot easier, and LED street lights are lovely
because they are broad-spectrum white), and I had to stop doing my own developing and printing in my darkroom because the orange safelight
started to make my eyes water and gave me headaches. I wonder if my eyes/brain are trying (and failing) to see colours in the monochromatic image.
Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually
involve yet?
Same as for a driving test maybe? i.e. read a numberplate at 5 car lengths
It would appear that the standard requirement to read a number plate at 20m will be tested every three years.
On 07/01/2026 07:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually
involve yet?
Same as for a driving test maybe? i.e. read a numberplate at 5 car
lengths
I doubt that the optometrist will take you outside and ask you to read numberplates! It'll just be an aspect of the regular eye test. I suppose that the optometrist may be required to issue you will some kind of certificate, probably digitally.
I doubt that the optometrist will take you outside and ask you to read numberplates! It'll just be an aspect of the regular eye test. I suppose that the optometrist may be required to issue you will some kind of certificate, probably digitally.
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 22:32:29 +0000, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve
yet?
I have an annual eye anyway, but will this test be a separate one, any
different from the usual one?
It should also include the field vision test (Estermann ???).
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I have used glasses for driving for several years now. Bi-focal so I
can read the 20m number plate and instruments on the dashboard.
I have long-sight and use 2.0 reading glasses. Just done a "numberplate test" and it's about 30m with the glasses off. I could probably see the *car* from half a mile away...
They allow normal sideways peripheral vision to spot pedestrians
waiting at road crossings etc. Doesn't help with night time LED flat
beam headlights:-(
I've got some yellow sunglasses, often regarded as snake oil, but they
do give a noticeable improvement.
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7
Jan 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement forBuy shares in Specsavers!
obtaining a driving licence.
I have used glasses for driving for several years now. Bi-focal so I >>>can read the 20m number plate and instruments on the dashboard.
I have long-sight and use 2.0 reading glasses. Just done a
"numberplate test" and it's about 30m with the glasses off. I could >>probably see the *car* from half a mile away...
They allow normal sideways peripheral vision to spot pedestrians >>>waiting at road crossings etc. Doesn't help with night time LED flat >>>beam headlights:-(
I've got some yellow sunglasses, often regarded as snake oil, but
they do give a noticeable improvement.
I had wondered about that. White LEDs are in fact blue LEDs with a
yellow phosphor, the colour spectrum shows a large fairly narrow blue
spike with a much broader and smaller yellow hump. So filter out the
blue with your yellow glasses and there should be an improvement.
Of course, if you have LED headlights yourself, then they'd appear less >bright too.
Doesn't help with night time LED flat beam headlights:-(
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several
tens of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view
mirror helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's side) >mirror. On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch for the
mirror to get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me. It might
be illegal to drive with the mirror in that position even for a short
time; I'm not sure.
None of it's helped by the move towards SUVs/4x4s etc which often have
the headlamps higher than in other cars.
On 07/01/2026 09:00, Jeff Layman wrote:
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you >>will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several
tens of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view
mirror helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's
side) mirror. On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch
for the mirror to get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me.
It might be illegal to drive with the mirror in that position even
for a short time; I'm not sure.
I don't find car headlights a problem. They are transient, so as long
as I can make myself look away from the beam for a couple of seconds,
I'm fine.
On 07/01/2026 11:52, Max Demian wrote:
I doubt that the optometrist will take you outside and ask you to read
numberplates! It'll just be an aspect of the regular eye test. I
suppose that the optometrist may be required to issue you will some
kind of certificate, probably digitally.
That is more like what I would expect... My licence is due for renewal
in June, so I was wondering if I would be caught by this test, and of
course what form the actual test might take. I have a regular, annual
eye check each March anyway, for mild T2, so I was wondering if perhaps
the two checks could perhaps be combined, into one visit.
White LEDs are in fact blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor, the colour
spectrum shows a large fairly narrow blue spike with a much broader and smaller yellow hump.-a So filter out the blue with your yellow glasses
and there should be an improvement.
On 07/01/2026 10:30, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
When I have my eyes tested, every 2 years (as recommended by my
optician, my prescription hasn't changed enough to require new lenses in
a decade if not more), they do a field of view test, along with checking
for glaucoma.
On 06/01/2026 23:31, Spike wrote:
It would appear that the standard requirement to read a number plate
at 20m
will be tested every three years.
I would expect it to be much more involved than just a basic 20m test.
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7
Jan 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I've often wondered about the ecconomics of Specsavers.
Whenever I go there the place seems to be filled with more staff than I
can count.-a Given a huge wage bill plus all the associated costs, their margins must be huge.
When I have my eyes tested, every 2 years (as recommended by my
optician, my prescription hasn't changed enough to require new lenses in
a decade if not more), they do a field of view test, along with checking
for glaucoma.
I would have no problem with a standard eye test. Like most people I
have one at regular intervals anyway.
Of course, I would prefer if this requirement was co-ordinated in some
way with my routine eye tests - rather than being pulled in two separate >directions (IYSWIM).
Or would that coordination require too much joined up thinking?
Not Specsavers, but a local optician I went to a few years ago for my
first free eye test.-a The optician was an elderly Indian gentleman who worked there afternoons only.-a The other four staff were sales people, trying to get you to pay -u200 for -u1 worth of plastic.
On 07/01/2026 12:43, Brian wrote:
When I have my eyes tested, every 2 years (as recommended by my
optician, my prescription hasn't changed enough to require new lenses in
a decade if not more), they do a field of view test, along with checking
for glaucoma.
My eyes gradually changed, over a few years, then seemed to stabilise,
they way they are, ever since, and so my prescription, hasn't really changed, since getting used to wearing glasses for reading.
After my eyes settled, I then marginally needed glasses for driving, but that driving prescription never changed. I still wear those original prescription glasses, when I remember, though I'm fine without, or even wearing my reading glasses.
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan
2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I've often wondered about the ecconomics of Specsavers.
Whenever I go there the place seems to be filled with more staff than I
can count. Given a huge wage bill plus all the associated costs, their margins must be huge.
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan >>> 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I've often wondered about the ecconomics of Specsavers.
Whenever I go there the place seems to be filled with more staff than I
can count. Given a huge wage bill plus all the associated costs, their
margins must be huge.
I like to have rCyphoto chromaticrCO lenses.
I recall the first pair I bought, in about 1977, when the supply of glasses was all through small, expensive, optician businesses ( unless up you had
NHS frames etc). I paid -u120, with rCystudent discountrCO.
IrCOm pretty sure I could get a similar pair now - simple metal frames, basic prescription ( not varifocals etc), but photo chromatic for not much more than -u120 from Specsavers.
IrCOve just used the Bank of England inflation tool. -u120 in 1977 equates to -u711 in Nov 25 ( the latest date available).
I forgot exactly what I paid for my current glasses - two pairs,
varifocals, high quality lenses with fancy coatings, one pair photo
chromatic ( I like to have a clear pair), rCa.. but IrCOm sure it was far, far,
less that -u700.
I recall the furore when the rules changed a companies like Specsavers started. It was claimed they would offer a third rate service. Certainly
the one we use doesnrCOt.
On 07/01/2026 19:29, Simon Simple wrote:
Not Specsavers, but a local optician I went to a few years ago for my
first free eye test.-a The optician was an elderly Indian gentleman who
worked there afternoons only.-a The other four staff were sales people,
trying to get you to pay -u200 for -u1 worth of plastic.
Last eye test, at Specsavers, they asked me what glassed I wore, and
pulled out my cheap pound shop pair, and asked to put them on for the
test. After the test, and to my shock, I was told they were absolutely
fine, just carry on wearing them.
I'm hard on glasses, regularly break them, so always have a few cheap
ones in stock, for when I do.
On 07/01/2026 19:53, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
On 07/01/2026 19:29, Simon Simple wrote:
Not Specsavers, but a local optician I went to a few years ago for my
first free eye test.-a The optician was an elderly Indian gentleman who
worked there afternoons only.-a The other four staff were sales people,
trying to get you to pay -u200 for -u1 worth of plastic.
Last eye test, at Specsavers, they asked me what glassed I wore, and
pulled out my cheap pound shop pair, and asked to put them on for the
test. After the test, and to my shock, I was told they were absolutely
fine, just carry on wearing them.
I'm hard on glasses, regularly break them, so always have a few cheap
ones in stock, for when I do.
I have 'proper' Specsavers glasses for driving (I don't wear them at any other time since my distance vision is pretty good anyway), but around 8 pairs of cheap & cheerful reading glasses strewn around the place so
there should always be a pair to hand when I need them.
I'm sure than wouldn't work for many people, but the arrangement works
well for me.
Simon Simple wrote:
White LEDs are in fact blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor, the colour
spectrum shows a large fairly narrow blue spike with a much broader
and smaller yellow hump.-a So filter out the blue with your yellow
glasses and there should be an improvement.
Glasses wearers are familiar with the chromatic aberration from the
LEDs, when checking following cars in door-mirrors the blue part of the spectrum is shifted quite a distance ... yet the non-blue part doesn't appear yellow, it still appears white ... how is that?
On 07/01/2026 19:53, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
On 07/01/2026 19:29, Simon Simple wrote:
Not Specsavers, but a local optician I went to a few years ago for
my first free eye test.a The optician was an elderly Indian
gentleman who worked there afternoons only.a The other four staff
were sales people, trying to get you to pay u200 for u1 worth of plastic.
Last eye test, at Specsavers, they asked me what glassed I wore, and >>pulled out my cheap pound shop pair, and asked to put them on for the >>test. After the test, and to my shock, I was told they were absolutely >>fine, just carry on wearing them.
I'm hard on glasses, regularly break them, so always have a few
cheap ones in stock, for when I do.
I have 'proper' Specsavers glasses for driving (I don't wear them at
any other time since my distance vision is pretty good anyway), but
around 8 pairs of cheap & cheerful reading glasses strewn around the
place so there should always be a pair to hand when I need them.
I'm sure than wouldn't work for many people, but the arrangement works
well for me.
On 07/01/2026 20:53, Brian wrote:
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:I have only used Specsavers once, The varifocals they supplied had such
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan >>>> 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I've often wondered about the ecconomics of Specsavers.
Whenever I go there the place seems to be filled with more staff than I
can count. Given a huge wage bill plus all the associated costs, their
margins must be huge.
I like to have rCyphoto chromaticrCO lenses.
I recall the first pair I bought, in about 1977, when the supply of glasses >> was all through small, expensive, optician businesses ( unless up you had
NHS frames etc). I paid -u120, with rCystudent discountrCO.
IrCOm pretty sure I could get a similar pair now - simple metal frames, basic
prescription ( not varifocals etc), but photo chromatic for not much more
than -u120 from Specsavers.
IrCOve just used the Bank of England inflation tool. -u120 in 1977 equates to
-u711 in Nov 25 ( the latest date available).
I forgot exactly what I paid for my current glasses - two pairs,
varifocals, high quality lenses with fancy coatings, one pair photo
chromatic ( I like to have a clear pair), rCa.. but IrCOm sure it was far, far,
less that -u700.
I recall the furore when the rules changed a companies like Specsavers
started. It was claimed they would offer a third rate service. Certainly
the one we use doesnrCOt.
a narrow field of view that I got headaches. I went back to Boots.
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan
2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I've often wondered about the ecconomics of Specsavers.
Whenever I go there the place seems to be filled with more staff than I
can count. Given a huge wage bill plus all the associated costs, their margins must be huge.
On 07/01/2026 15:00, Andy Burns wrote:
Simon Simple wrote:
White LEDs are in fact blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor, the
colour spectrum shows a large fairly narrow blue spike with a much
broader and smaller yellow hump.-a So filter out the blue with your
yellow glasses and there should be an improvement.
Glasses wearers are familiar with the chromatic aberration from the
LEDs, when checking following cars in door-mirrors the blue part of
the spectrum is shifted quite a distance ... yet the non-blue part
doesn't appear yellow, it still appears white ... how is that?
Dunno, but what were 'normal' incandescents are pretty yellow. You
just get used to it. Remember old film photos taken under
incandescent light without a flash. Yellow/orange.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 22:55:40 +0000
Simon Simple <nothanks@nottoday.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/01/2026 15:00, Andy Burns wrote:
Simon Simple wrote:
White LEDs are in fact blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor, the
colour spectrum shows a large fairly narrow blue spike with a much
broader and smaller yellow hump.-a So filter out the blue with your
yellow glasses and there should be an improvement.
Glasses wearers are familiar with the chromatic aberration from the
LEDs, when checking following cars in door-mirrors the blue part of
the spectrum is shifted quite a distance ... yet the non-blue part
doesn't appear yellow, it still appears white ... how is that?
Dunno, but what were 'normal' incandescents are pretty yellow. You
just get used to it. Remember old film photos taken under
incandescent light without a flash. Yellow/orange.
That's because the film and development were optimised for daylight,
probably around 6000K colour temperature, tungsten is about 2700K. I
used to work on TV cameras in a fluorescent-lit workshop under a
skylight, using a tungsten-halogen lamp for colour reference on charts. Zooming out and scattering a few bits of white paper around, they all
looked white to me but the camera saw them as three very different
colours in different places. The eye/brain has very efficient auto-white abilities. Anything it thinks 'ought to be white' it will see as white.
That's because the film and development were optimised for daylight,
probably around 6000K colour temperature, tungsten is about 2700K. I
used to work on TV cameras in a fluorescent-lit workshop under a
skylight, using a tungsten-halogen lamp for colour reference on charts. Zooming out and scattering a few bits of white paper around, they all
looked white to me but the camera saw them as three very different
colours in different places. The eye/brain has very efficient auto-white abilities. Anything it thinks 'ought to be white' it will see as white.
On 07/01/2026 08:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7
Jan 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for
obtaining a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I've often wondered about the ecconomics of Specsavers.
Whenever I go there the place seems to be filled with more staff than I
can count. Given a huge wage bill plus all the associated costs, their margins must be huge.
I can read the rhs clock at
18" with no correction.
Sam Plusnet wrote:
I would have no problem with a standard eye test. Like most people I
have one at regular intervals anyway.
Of course, I would prefer if this requirement was co-ordinated in some
way with my routine eye tests - rather than being pulled in two separate >>directions (IYSWIM).
Or would that coordination require too much joined up thinking?
I haven't seen the details, but I thought that one option was to provide evidence of a recent eye test, so nothing extra required.
My last visit to Specsavers - 10 years ago - they had a different >opthamologist who had no interest in my eye health and every interest in >whether I "needed" varifocals. Which apparently I did.
When I left the examination he passed the paper to an assistant and said >"varifocals". From that moment on the plan was I was not allowed to leave
the store until I had chosen. I dodged that by inventing a child I
needed to collect. However once free had *four* phone calls asking when
was I returning to decide on what varifocals I needed.
In message <WbB7R.15569$s_zc.14466@fx15.ams1>, at 22:34:29 on Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
On 07/01/2026 19:53, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
On 07/01/2026 19:29, Simon Simple wrote:
Not Specsavers, but a local optician I went to a few years ago for
my-a first free eye test.-a The optician was an elderly Indian
gentleman who-a worked there afternoons only.-a The other four staff
were sales people,-a trying to get you to pay -u200 for -u1 worth of
plastic.
-aLast eye test, at Specsavers, they asked me what glassed I wore, and
pulled out my cheap pound shop pair, and asked to put them on for the
test. After the test, and to my shock, I was told they were
absolutely fine, just carry on wearing them.
-aI'm hard on glasses, regularly break them, so always have a few
cheap-a ones in stock, for when I do.
I have 'proper' Specsavers glasses for driving (I don't wear them at
any other time since my distance vision is pretty good anyway), but
around 8 pairs of cheap & cheerful reading glasses strewn around the
place so there should always be a pair to hand when I need them.
I'm sure than wouldn't work for many people, but the arrangement works
well for me.
Works for me too. I've even got a pair of reading glasses in a special holder in the car, in case my regular ones are forgotten or broken.
I find it's the hinges on the -u2 glasses which go first, MTBF about
three months. Bought a repair kit a few years ago, but frankly it's
easier just to buy a new pair (Aldi central aisle in packs of three,
for example)
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 19:44:46 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
I would have no problem with a standard eye test. Like most people I
have one at regular intervals anyway.
Of course, I would prefer if this requirement was co-ordinated in some
way with my routine eye tests - rather than being pulled in two separate >>> directions (IYSWIM).
Or would that coordination require too much joined up thinking?
I haven't seen the details, but I thought that one option was to provide
evidence of a recent eye test, so nothing extra required.
The field tests requried by the DVSA are not part of a standard
diagnostic test.
On 07/01/2026 11:26, NY wrote:
On 07/01/2026 09:00, Jeff Layman wrote:
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several
tens of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view
mirror helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's
side) mirror. On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch
for the mirror to get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me.
It might be illegal to drive with the mirror in that position even
for a short time; I'm not sure.
I don't find car headlights a problem. They are transient, so as long
as I can make myself look away from the beam for a couple of seconds,
I'm fine.
Not so much the actual glare as being unable to see cyclists/objects on
my side of unlit country roads until they have passed. Could be my 12
year old headlights need renewing! Less of a problem where the road does
not undulate so their flat beam actually illuminates the surface.
On 07/01/2026 07:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually
involve yet?
Same as for a driving test maybe? i.e. read a numberplate at 5 car
lengths
I doubt that the optometrist will take you outside and ask you to read numberplates! It'll just be an aspect of the regular eye test. I suppose that the optometrist may be required to issue you will some kind of certificate, probably digitally.
Harry Bloomfield Esq <harry.m1byt@outlook.com> wrote:
Has anyone got any details yet, on what the test might actually involve yet? >>
I have an annual eye anyway, but will this test be a separate one, any
different from the usual one?
Having diabetes and using insulin I have had to renew my licence every 3 years even before hitting the 75 threshold. Last year they introduced a compulsory test as part of the licence renewal, this involved the usual
chart rest and also a field of vision test.
On 08/01/2026 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:+1 You are also allowed more than one attempt !
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 19:44:46 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
I would have no problem with a standard eye test.-a Like most people I >>>> have one at regular intervals anyway.
Of course, I would prefer if this requirement was co-ordinated in some >>>> way with my routine eye tests - rather than being pulled in two
separate
directions (IYSWIM).
Or would that coordination require too much joined up thinking?
I haven't seen the details, but I thought that one option was to provide >>> evidence of a recent eye test, so nothing extra required.
The field tests requried by the DVSA are not part of a standard
diagnostic test.
Whose 'standard diagnostic test' ?.
The NHS will carry out a field of view test on each eye
separately, and by varying the intensity of the flashing
light. Most opticians will do the same and many will also
have more clever kit to look more closely at the retina.
Specsavers (who have the exclusive DVSA contract) test both
eyes simultaneously with the chin rest centrally positioned
and only using full intensity flashes of light. You must
not miss any flashes in the critical central area. You can
miss a limited number at the periphery.
Specsavers (who have the exclusive DVSA contract) test both
eyes simultaneously with the chin rest centrally positioned
and only using full intensity flashes of light. You must
not miss any flashes in the critical central area. You can
miss a limited number at the periphery.
Additionally, the Beeb says this:
rCYNearly one in four car drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or older, according to government figures.rCY
Simon Simple wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Glasses wearers are familiar with the chromatic aberration from the
LEDs, when checking following cars in door-mirrors the blue part of
the spectrum is shifted quite a distance ... yet the non-blue part
doesn't appear yellow, it still appears white ... how is that?
Dunno, but what were 'normal' incandescents are pretty yellow. You
just get used to it. Remember old film photos taken under
incandescent light without a flash. Yellow/orange.
That's because the film and development were optimised for daylight,
probably around 6000K colour temperature, tungsten is about 2700K. I
used to work on TV cameras in a fluorescent-lit workshop under a
skylight, using a tungsten-halogen lamp for colour reference on charts. Zooming out and scattering a few bits of white paper around, they all
looked white to me but the camera saw them as three very different
colours in different places. The eye/brain has very efficient auto-white abilities. Anything it thinks 'ought to be white' it will see as white.
On 6 Jan 2026 at 23:31:47 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Additionally, the Beeb says this:
rCYNearly one in four car drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or older,
according to government figures.rCY
The Beeb's "news writers" are incresingly allowed to get away with shoddy work.
Or perhaps the Beeb is leant upon by Government to subtly create social movements, such as prejudices.
I noted the day that when Brigitte Bardot died, the two things menioned (after
her wildly successful sex-bomb career!) were that "in later life she been criticised for homophobic statements, and also for racist remarks". --- not a blessed word about her massive efforts to protect wildlife and nature. A later
rews report, on radio 4, reverted to mentioning her more praiseworthy efforts in life, and did not menton the more negative ones.
Sorry for the thread sweve: I've had to write a CV for myself all afternoon: I
was bored. (A CV! At my age! I worked in the same company for 38 years: I never used a CV after 1971!. I wish to continue doing voluntary work and one of the required document for the faceless farts who run our society now is to provide a CV.)
And a vast P.S.: there is no bigger supporter, or fan, of the BBC than I am. But I'm distressed at the way it is corrupting itself by shoddy work, thus making the job of the anti-BBC brigade so much easier.
And a vast P.S.: there is no bigger supporter, or fan, of the BBC than I am. >> But I'm distressed at the way it is corrupting itself by shoddy work, thus >> making the job of the anti-BBC brigade so much easier.Yes, they describe themselves as rCOthe most watched news channelrCO, and not rCOthe most trusted news channelrCO. But I maintain their work isnrCOt shoddy,
itrCOs deliberate manipulation in the interests of perception management.
On 10/01/2026 12:08, Spike wrote:
And a vast P.S.: there is no bigger supporter, or fan, of the BBC than I am.Yes, they describe themselves as rCOthe most watched news channelrCO, and not
But I'm distressed at the way it is corrupting itself by shoddy work, thus >>> making the job of the anti-BBC brigade so much easier.
rCOthe most trusted news channelrCO. But I maintain their work isnrCOt shoddy,
itrCOs deliberate manipulation in the interests of perception management.
Ultimately one has to deal with the world not as we would like it to be,
but as it is.
The BBC is now rotten to the core - a process that started in the 1960s
- and needs to be cut down and stump ground.
There is no need for an anti-state, anti-science propaganda machine.
We need a public service and information broiacaster.
On 10 Jan 2026 at 12:24:40 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ultimately one has to deal with the world not as we would like it to be,
but as it is.
The BBC is now rotten to the core - a process that started in the 1960s
- and needs to be cut down and stump ground.
I think you'll find that most people find the BBC pretty much worthwhile, overall. At least it finds time to laugh at itself (W1A), and news coverage has none of the hatred, intolerance, and nastiness that's pretty much all there is to alternatives like Fox and GB.
There is no need for an anti-state, anti-science propaganda machine.A peculiarity of our time is that left/right political extremes say pretty much the same thing.
We need a public service and information broiacaster.If you take the time to pick the good bits, you'll find that at the BBC. Start
with Matt Chorley and the News Agents.
On 08/01/2026 20:42, Andrew wrote:
Specsavers (who have the exclusive DVSA contract) test both
eyes simultaneously with the chin rest centrally positioned
and only using full intensity flashes of light. You must
not miss any flashes in the critical central area. You can
miss a limited number at the periphery.
So, the very same test as I am used to doing each year anyway?
So do you mean the DVSA are making you have a Visual Field
test every year ?. This would have to be at Specsavers anyway
Andrew wrote:
So do you mean the DVSA are making you have a Visual Field
test every year ?. This would have to be at Specsavers anyway
I can't see the changed requirements for over 70s boiling down to that,
I think provided you've made an appearance at an opticians within 3
years and can read the n'th line up on the chart, and the optician has
no other reason to refer you to your doctor, or for the field test, then you'll be golden ...
On 11/01/2026 15:55, Andy Burns wrote:
Andrew wrote:The problem is certain people with below standard eyesight will do
So do you mean the DVSA are making you have a Visual Field test every
year ?. This would have to be at Specsavers anyway
I can't see the changed requirements for over 70s boiling down to that,
I think provided you've made an appearance at an opticians within 3
years and can read the n'th line up on the chart, and the optician has
no other reason to refer you to your doctor, or for the field test,
then you'll be golden ...
anything they can to mislead the DVSA, and sadly, there will be a ready (small) cohort of Opticians who will fill that requirement.
Getting fake documents to open bank accounts and falsify ID seems to be
quite easy. Getting a piece of paper claiming a 20/20 vision will be no problem.
I suspect this is one of the reasons why the DVSA decided to only use
the test results from their chosen firm of opticians, Specsavers.
So do you mean the DVSA are making you have a Visual Field test every
year ?. This would have to be at Specsavers anyway
If you mean at your optician or the NHS then probably no, not the same.
These two places will be testing each eye separately and also by varying
the intensity of the flashes to ascertain what is wrong with your *eyes* whereas the DVSA are only interested in how good your binocular vision
is.
In message <ms6ij6F3diuU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:07 on Wed, 7 Jan 2026, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> remarked:
I assume a report from your oculist will be a requirement for obtaining
a driving licence.
Buy shares in Specsavers!
I have used glasses for driving for several years now. Bi-focal so I
can read the 20m number plate and instruments on the dashboard.
I have long-sight and use 2.0 reading glasses. Just done a "numberplate test" and it's about 30m with the glasses off. I could probably see the *car* from half a mile away...
They allow normal sideways peripheral vision to spot pedestrians
waiting at road crossings etc. Doesn't help with night time LED flat
beam headlights:-(
I've got some yellow sunglasses, often regarded as snake oil, but they
do give a noticeable improvement.
crossings etc. Doesn't help with night time LED flat beam headlights:-(
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several tens
of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view mirror
helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's side) mirror.
On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch for the mirror to
get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me. It might be illegal
to drive with the mirror in that position even for a short time; I'm not sure.
None of it's helped by the move towards SUVs/4x4s etc which often have
the headlamps higher than in other cars.
On 07/01/2026 11:26, NY wrote:
On 07/01/2026 09:00, Jeff Layman wrote:
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several
tens of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view
mirror helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's
side) mirror. On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch for
the mirror to get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me. It
might be illegal to drive with the mirror in that position even for a
short time; I'm not sure.
I don't find car headlights a problem. They are transient, so as long as
I can make myself look away from the beam for a couple of seconds, I'm
fine.
Not so much the actual glare as being unable to see cyclists/objects on
my side of unlit country roads until they have passed. Could be my 12
year old headlights need renewing! Less of a problem where the road does
not undulate so their flat beam actually illuminates the surface.
I have only used Specsavers once, The varifocals they supplied had such
a narrow field of view that I got headaches. I went back to Boots.
Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com> wrote:
On 07/01/2026 11:26, NY wrote:
On 07/01/2026 09:00, Jeff Layman wrote:
Indeed. Nor with those behind you - at least those coming towards you
will be gone in a few seconds. With those behind, it can be several
tens of seconds or even minutes with glare. Dipping the rear-view
mirror helps, but sometimes you get glare from the door (driver's
side) mirror. On very rare occasions I have used the "fold" switch for >>>> the mirror to get rid of the glare from the headlights behind me. It
might be illegal to drive with the mirror in that position even for a
short time; I'm not sure.
I don't find car headlights a problem. They are transient, so as long as >>> I can make myself look away from the beam for a couple of seconds, I'm
fine.
Not so much the actual glare as being unable to see cyclists/objects on
my side of unlit country roads until they have passed. Could be my 12
year old headlights need renewing! Less of a problem where the road does
not undulate so their flat beam actually illuminates the surface.
Now that car headlamps have got so bright I find driving across the New Forest which I live on the edge of a lot harder than I used to when lights were yellowish from old fashioned lamps , I find now on a long straight
that an approaching vehicle on main beam can affect vision 1/4 or even 1/2 mile away.
The choice is the two drivers approaching each other dazzle each other or dip far earlier than was once necessary , either is bad for seeing the free ranging animals that wander across but the latter is probably worse from
that point of view as you have a fairly long unilluminated area of road between the two vehicles where animals could be so you have to drive quite slowly to avoid hitting one.
Still see people who think it is fine to drive at the 40 limit or even
faster in such circumstances, as well as the suffering caused to the animal and its owner hitting something like a horse or cow at that speed usually does enough damage to a modern car that it becomes a write off.
Neighbours hit a Deer which was enough to write off their two year old VW E golf which from 15 yards away only appeared to have creased bonnet, bent grill and a broken headlamp.
Drivers in other areas with unfenced roads like on some moors maybe experience similar.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 15:48:35 +0000, Andrew wrote:
If you mean at your optician or the NHS then probably no, not the same.
These two places will be testing each eye separately and also by varying
the intensity of the flashes to ascertain what is wrong with your *eyes*
whereas the DVSA are only interested in how good your binocular vision
is.
The current requirements do not actually include binocular vision.
I've got some yellow sunglasses, often regarded as snake oil, but they
do give a noticeable improvement.
Any particular brand ? Adverts for the things have been a rash on my >facebook feeds recently and when that happens I tend to ignore things >completely.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:42:35 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,176 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
