eBay

triasic · ‎01-02-2017

Before I start, I will empasize the fact that I believe ALL road users should undergo a sight test at least once every two years, regardless of age!

I am now almost 73, ad have been subjected twice to eye tests, and the way these are organised leaves a lot to be desired. Having an eye condition (Ocular Hypertension, controlled by eyedrops), but NOT glaucoma, I can see pretty well. Just before my 70th birthday, I got the medical form, and declared this condition. I submitted the results of my last eye examination made by a London hospital, stating that I had full visual fields in both eyes, and excellent vision! But this was not good enough for the DVLA - I had to attend undertake a "specialised" eye test at a DVLA centre. I did not object to this, but was amazed to find that it was Boots optician on the high street! I went along and found the test "a piece of cake," but they would not tell me if I had passed. One month later, my new driving licence arrived, valid until 2017! So, if it had not come up to the standard required, I would have been driving around for a full month before I was told!

Two weeks ago, I attended the hospital for my routine check up. The report came back full visual fields in both eyes, visual acuity very good, followed by a clear statement "fit to drive from an ocular point of view!" Was this good enough for the DVLA? - NO! Again, I had to undertake a "specialised" eye test at a DVLA centre. Again, no problem with me. But - Boots were no longer acceptable - I had to go to Specsavers for this "specialised" test. STILL NO PROBLEM with me - But - I couldn't go in the City where I lived, but had to go on a one-hour bus journey to a small town miles away! Off I went, and again found the test "a piece of cake," but still had to wait eight days before my new licence arrived!

I don't think I am being unreasonable to expect that the opinion of a highly-trained hospital consultant should NOT have to be confirmed by Specsavers and the DVLA!

Furthermore, if Specsavers have to undertake "specialised" tests - the result should be available IMMEDIATELY, and if the driver is unfit to drive, the licence revoked there and then!

theelench · ‎01-02-2017

I agree with you, the DVLA seem to love this sort of "specialised" test and yet although they must be quite a common occurrence they seem to be (dis)organised to cause the maximum inconvenience.

I had a similar experience a few years back when my car was hit from behind at a junction and the repairs were estimated to be greater than the book value of the vehicle so was written off. The fact that although my car only suffered a broken bumper that cost around £100 to replace while the insurers estimate for replacing the whole of the back of the car was grossly inflated to nearly £1000 is another story.

As I elected to take the book value and keep the car I was required to take a Vehicle Identity Check to ensure the work was carried out to a road-worthy standard. I had to travel to their test centre in Chatham, in the morning rush-hour, taking most of the morning off work.

I waited in my car until the tester came over to collect it and drive it to a large shed then headed to reception to get coffee and wait. I never got there as the "specialised" test took all of three minutes. A quick poke at the broken bumper and a look at the serial numbers on the chassis and engine, I suspect.

Why could this test not have been carried out at any of the MOT test centres, either where I live or in a town nearer and easier to get to than Chatham?

I don't know about medical condition tests (yet), but do you have to pay a fee for them? My VIC test cost me £35 and I wonder if this is the real point of the exercise.

triasic · ‎01-02-2017

No, you don't have to pay for the test, but my main "gripe" was having to waste three hours plus to take the test. One hour bus ride going, half an hour walking in the town of the test, half an hour doing the actual test, and then another hour or more going home. The bus journey was free because of my over-60s bus pass. Good job I was fit enough to stand the journey easily with all that walking, but a lot of folk my age are not!

theelench · ‎01-02-2017

That's not too bad then. I'm self-employed and the fee was only the beginning for me. Not knowing how long the test would be I cancelled a mornings work. If my test had been done locally I could have cancelled one hour. Worse for you as presumably there are local branches of the opticians in your town.

Another example of pointless red-tape.

triasic · ‎01-02-2017

I live in a city and there is a Specsavers within a 6-minute drive away, but the ridiculous thing is that they are not a "specialised" testing centre, so I had to travel miles to a small town! Also, they did not tell me I could wear reading glasses during the fields test, so I did it without - and still passed!

mikes*corvettes · ‎01-02-2017

@theelench wrote:
As I elected to take the book value and keep the car I was required to take a Vehicle Identity Check to ensure the work was carried out to a road-worthy standard.

A very common misconception but during a VIC test the standard of repair is not examined, all that is done during the test is that the vin number on the car is checked against the one held by DVLA before a new V5 is issued to replace the one destroyed by the insurance company.

theelench · ‎01-02-2017

I stand corrected. But to me that seems even more of a waste of time. Why can't any MOT centre do this?

Same for the OP, why have a designated optician in another town when he has a branch of the company a few minutes away.

It's just pointless red-tape IMO.

al**bear · ‎03-02-2017

A major problem for the DVLA is Family Doctors (and I suppose Opticians) rubber stamping their Patients, 'sutibility to drive' reports

It's been going on for many many Years

We all know People who shouldn't be on the road, but their Doctors (and I suppose Opticians) don't report them to the DVLA

That is why You now need 'Independant' proof

triasic · ‎03-02-2017

You have totally missed my point! I was NOT complaining about the eye tests! I was complaining about the fact that I had to take a one-hour bus journey to another town to take it, and then wait between 8 days and 30 days for the result, when there is a Specsavers where I live!

I for one cannot believe that a report from a hospital consultant stating full visual fields in both eyes, excellent visual acuity and fitness to drive can be dismissed by the DVLA in favour of a Specsavers report!

I think EVERYONE who drives should be subject to an eye test every two years regardless of age. Thousands, possibly more, folk who have not got a known eye condition, but have detriorating sight only have to tick YES or NO about their ability to drive when they reach 70 years of age. In the early stages of untreated glaucoma, the periphoral vision goes gradually, without the sufferer being aware of it. A hospital test will show this long before the patient becomes aware, and steps can be taken to stop it progressing!