‘Basic common sense': readers respond to plan for mandatory eye tests for UK drivers over 70
It is one of a number of measures proposed amid concern about the number of people being killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads. Last year, 1,633 people were killed and almost 28,000 seriously injured in traffic incidents.
Here, readers share their views on the planned mandatory eye tests.
I totally agree with this proposed development as safety on the roads is paramount. We need to address avoidable risks. I now need glasses, which do give me a good quality of sight, but I would be grateful for reassurance that my sight is consistently good enough to drive.
I would also approve of more rigorous tests for older drivers like myself. I find night time driving on non-motorway roads more difficult than I did, and I am more likely to feel tired driving earlier in a journey than I did when I was younger.
As older drivers, we should be prepared to demonstrate that we can drive safely on busy roads. I would hate myself if I caused an accident when I was later shown to be unfit physically or mentally to drive. I am responsible to all road users, including any passengers in my car. So definitely a thumbs-up to this move. Charlie, 70, retired, Penrith, Cumbria
I think it is a good idea. Last year I went for an eye test. I was immediately referred for cataract operations in both eyes. After the operations, I realised how bad my eyesight had been. I don't think I should have been driving. Cliff, 83, West Sussex
I think an eye test is a good idea. I've been a safe driver since the age of 16. I have my eyes tested every two years. My issue is the young drivers who speed. It seems backwards to assume older drivers are the problem when, statistically, isn't it the younger drivers causing the deaths? Dotty, 76, retired, Norfolk
Regular eye tests for drivers are a good idea, but starting at any specific age is arbitrary. Younger people can also develop eyesight problems. I myself started to need glasses in my 30s. Had I ignored the problem, I would have been as much of a danger then as I would be if I didn't have regular eye tests now. Jeff, 70, retired software developer, Wokingham, Berkshire
I'm amazed it's not already a requirement. Gradual eyesight loss is not always noticed, and when noticed, older car-dependent people do not always act on it. It would be a less unpopular requirement if accompanied by affordable public transport options, for example, easy-to-access mini buses that pick up and drop off at people's doors. Jill, 70, Bracknell, Berkshire
Absolutely a must. My mother (over-90 now and still alive) has macular degeneration (both wet and dry), which affected her sight years ago. She continued to drive in spite of her family's pleas.
I understood why: she was the sole carer of an Alzheimer's patient. But it was still dangerous for everyone. A compulsory eye test would have removed the acrimony that arose from family members telling her she needed to relinquish her driving licence. Anonymous
As set out, this is ageism. I totally agree that there should be compulsory eye tests for drivers, but it should be a requirement for all drivers. Eyesight can fail at any age. Also, this is the stick, where is the carrot? Where is the better public transport to allow those who lose the ability to drive to get around, or are we planning to trap them in their homes? Steve, 62, Surrey
This is basic common sense. Along with eye tests, there ought to be hazard perception tests and reaction speed tests. I realise that for many elderly people, driving is one of the last independent things they can do, but really, who wouldn't want to be safe on the roads? It's selfish to think otherwise. Anonymous
As someone about to turn 61 next month, I fully support the initiative of mandatory eye testing for the over 70s, but I think a further shake-up of road safety should also be considered. First of all, why just leave it at over 70s? As we have to renew our licenses every 10 years, it should be a part of the renewal process and should include an online test to pick up changes within the Highway Code. In 2022, there were significant changes, and yet most motoring surveys showed that the majority of drivers were unaware or were even going to make themselves aware. Paul, 60, Lincoln
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Drivers heading to hugely popular festival this weekend warned of hefty fines for dangerous mistake on the motorway
MUSIC lovers excited for this weekend's Creamfields festival have been warned to avoid making a silly mistake on the motorway which could result in a nasty fine. The electronic dance music festival, a four-day event held annually on the August Bank Holiday weekend in Daresbury, Cheshire, is located near Junction 11 of the M56 motorway. 5 5 5 5 5 And for those travelling by car, National Highways has reminded drivers of the potential fines for dangerous behaviour, which can sometimes occur due to eagerness to arrive. Their warning stems from pedestrians walking on the motorway or vehicles stopping to drop off or pick up passengers - which is illegal and highly dangerous. Offenders who are caught doing this may be fined, with those arriving by car instructed to use designated collection points which are clearly marked off the motorway. To this end, drivers are encouraged to plan ahead and allow extra time for their journeys to avoid congestion, while also following dedicated event signs - rather than relying on sat nav systems which may lead them onto unsuitable roads. For the event, extra police and National Highways traffic officers will be stationed near junction 11 of the M56 to manage traffic and ensure safety. Car parks for the festival site will open at midday on Thursday and close at 2 pm on Monday. Traffic from the north, south and east are urged to use junction 11 of the M56, while traffic from the west should use junction 12. Congestion hotspots include junctions 10, 11 and 12 of the M56 and the M56/M6 interchange at Lymm are expected to be particularly busy. Electronic motorway signs will be used to provide real-time updates on congestion and incidents. Creamfields, which runs from Thursday at 2 pm to Sunday at 11 pm, will have an expected 70,000 attendees. Watch Tesla test self-driving cars on London streets as it passes famous landmarks TAKE THE LEED Reading and Leeds Festival is also taking place over the Bank Holiday weekend, running from Thursday to Sunday. At the Leeds iteration, held at Bramham Park, around 90,000 attendees are expected and those driving to the event have been warned that roadworks on certain routes, including the M1, A1(M) and A64, could cause delays. Drivers are advised to plan ahead and allow extra time for their journeys, while on-site parking is included for ticketholders - with routes to car parks clearly signposted. Helpfully, a dedicated festival bus will run from Leeds railway station to the site from Wednesday to Monday, with tickets available online.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Motorist, 71, wins bizarre FIVE-year legal battle with major parking firm – over £1 ticket he had already paid
A 71-YEAR-OLD motorist has emerged victorious from a bizarre five-year legal battle over a £1 parking ticket. Nigel Richardson took on Euro Car Parks in court after the firm pursued him over the £1 debt for nearly half a decade. 6 6 The semi-retired former business owner has since claimed victory in the David and Goliath battle after taking on a barrister while representing himself at Leicester County Court on July 11. Nigel parked his VW Golf in Syston, Leicestershire back in 2020 but had no change on him and the card payment machines weren't working. He paid for his parking using a mobile phone but then received no notification telling him the payment had been successful. Mr Richardson wrote to the firm to explain what had happened and that he might owe them a quid, they responded by slapping him with a £100 fine. Later, Nigel found the receipt for his payment and thought that would be the end of the matter. Over the next four years however he was hounded by debt collection companies, receiving letters threatening him with court action. The fine more than doubled to £230 as well with Nigel refusing to back down. At court Mr Richardson took on a barrister himself and was awarded £200 in compensation by a judge who agreed he had been unfairly fined. Nigel then had to pay court costs of £180 leaving him just £20 better off after the five-year dispute. Nigel of Rearsby, Leicestershire, said: "A win is a win. Driver gets instant karma after lobbing £50 parking ticket on the floor "The simple thing would have been to just pay the fine but I knew I had nothing wrong. "I made every effort to buy a ticket but their machines weren't accepting card payments and I wasn't going to be bullied into paying the fine. " When I used the app I had notification the money had come out. I even tried to call a number to do it over the phone but that didn't work either. "I went to the shop to try and get change but they were closed early on a Wednesday, so I didn't know what more I could do. 6 6 "I know what these companies can be like so I even contacted them to explain what happened and to see if I could pay the £1 if the app hadn't worked. "But the next thing I know a fine comes through and then you have to start an appeals process. "But then I found the receipt for the £1 which had gone to my junk folder - so I thought great, here's the proof there's no debt to pay. "But even when I pointed that out, they said I hadn't raised this at the appeal stage, so they kept on. "Various debt collection companies and solicitors started sending threatening letters warning about county court proceedings. "When I wrote to DCB Legal, who were pursuing the debt, I told them I'd got the receipt now and they said it was up to Euro Car Parks to drop it. "I wrote to Euro Car Parks and they told me it was up to DCB. "DCB said they would see me in court, so I said, 'bring it on' and I launched a counterclaim. "I had the bit between my teeth by then and there was no way I was going to give up." Nigel later revealed that the firm said they would drop the case if he agreed to pay £60 and sign a confidentiality agreement. 6 6 When confronted with the offer Mr Richardson said no to the parking company. He said: "I said no and I knew at this point they were starting to back down as the next thing I know they were talking about dropping the entire case. "But after four years and a lot of my time, I thought I was entitled to some compensation so we ended up in court. "They offered me £130 but I decided to go to court instead as I had spent many hours writing letters. "I looked up what a junior barrister charges and its like £100 an hour so I decided to claim for £2,480 which I think was very reasonable as I'd spent about 100 hours representing myself. "In court the judge asked the Euro Car Parks barrister why I was being pursued for a debt I didn't owe and he said he 'hadn't been instructed about that'. "He was fumbling through his documents and looking at his phone for an answer but that was all he could say. "In the end the compensation was settled at £200 but after paying £180 costs I only ended up with £20." about the principle."
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
'RAC left me stranded on a busy motorway for four hours - but only offered £8 compensation'
Every Tuesday, we answer your financial problems or consumer disputes - email moneyblog@ Today's problem is... "I was driving from Portsmouth to Guildford when my vehicle suddenly lost power in the fast lane of the M275. I managed to coast to the hard shoulder of an elevated section of the motorway. I called RAC and told them I was not in a safe place, but they took almost four hours to come rescue me and tow my vehicle. While I was waiting, two other vehicles collided while trying to avoid my broken down car. I submitted a complaint and they only offered me a two month extension on my policy (equivalent to £8). Can you help?" Jason Cost of living specialist Megan Harwood Baynes answers this one... You sent over a very detailed summary of what had happened to you. In short, you registered the breakdown at 4.11pm via the RAC app, but it took almost four hours for you to be rescued. You called the company repeatedly and were told help was minutes away, but this failed to materialise. At one point, two other vehicles collided while trying to avoid your broken-down car, further highlighting what a dangerous situation you were in. When the patrol car did arrive, you told me the engineer said it was "absolutely unbelievable that [you had] been left on a dangerous bend on a high-speed road for almost four hours". You also had to pay £148 because once you were rescued, the patrol car didn't have enough time left on shift to take you to your final destination, only a local garage, so you had to arrange separately to get your car home. All in all, this was a pretty rubbish and, at times, scary incident for you. However, when you complained to the RAC, you did not feel that the type of compensation offered was appropriate. You then filed a subject access request and were able to see all the data the RAC held about you. It showed that, at one point, a patrol car declined to attend your breakdown, but you were not given an update about this. The RAC response I reached out to the RAC to find out what had gone wrong It said: "While roadside assistance companies come to the rescue of thousands of drivers every day of the year, it's important to realise they're not an emergency service and don't have the legal right to control traffic to protect the scene of a breakdown. "As such, they can only attend live-lane breakdowns when the area has been made safe by the police or, on motorways and major A roads, the appropriate highways authority. "Only when the scene is safe should drivers contact their breakdown company." The company also reached out to you directly and was very apologetic. It told you it had let you down, both during the incident and with the handling of the subsequent complaint. Because Sky News had brought the issue to the RAC's attention, you were told the right people were now aware and would look to make sure this didn't happen again in the future. The RAC also offered you £250, which you were pleased to accept. What should you do if you break down on a motorway? A motorway can be one of the scariest places to break down, and while you would think the first thing to do would be to call your breakdown cover, you should actually call the police. Jason had broken down on a particularly dangerous part of the M275 - there wasn't really a proper hard shoulder, and so a breakdown recovery van would not have been able to stop until the scene had been made safe. This would have been the responsibility of the police. The RAC says: "It's vital after breaking down that drivers assess the safety of their situation quickly and thoroughly and take the right course of action to protect themselves and others." Here's what you should do if you find yourself in a similar situation... Stay calm and think of other road users. If you can, move your car away from other vehicles and turn your wheels to the left. Turn on your hazard lights and leave your car by the passenger side door. Put on a hi-vis jacket if you have one. If visibility is poor, keep the side lights or fog lights switched on. Do not put your warning triangle behind your car if you are on a high-speed road. Climb over a safety barrier if there is one, or try to distance yourself from passing traffic. Stand to the rear of your vehicle, away from traffic - this means if someone collides with your car, debris won't fly forward and hit you. Call the emergency services, and then contact your breakdown service. Emergency telephones are found roughly one mile apart on the motorway. What is a subject access request, and how can it help with a complaint? A subject access request gives you, the consumer, the power to ask a company: "What data do you hold about me?" Under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), you have a right to obtain a copy of any information which relates to you, whether this is kept on a computer or in a structured manual filing system. Anyone can make a SAR, and under UK GDPR rules, the company has one month to locate, review and disclose the information. If they don't, you can make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. The company can redact certain confidential information, but if you feel it has wrongly been redacted, you can complain to the ICO. In this instance, Jason was able to see all of the details the RAC held about his breakdown, including information he wasn't given at the time (such as the patrol car cancellation). Although the complaint was not successful until the Money team stepped in, it helped his case significantly. His next steps (as we can't always be on hand to help) would have been to take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service - the RAC has all the information about this on its website.
