Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Police seize more than 600 licences under Cassie's Law for bad eyesight

Drivers with bad eyesight can be pulled off the roads faster thanks to campaign by bereaved mum

More than 600 motorists have have their driving licences revoked after failing roadside eye tests under new police powers brought in after the death of a 16 year old girl.

In 2011 Cassie McCord was hit by 87-year-old Colin Horsfall who he had failed a police eyesight test just a few days earlier.

Under the former law, he was still able to drive due to a loophole that meant it took days for a licence to be revoked by the DVLA.

Cassie’s mother, Jackie Rason, campaigned for a change in the law - now known as Cassie’s Law. Under new powers police can apply to have a licence urgently removed if a driver cannot read a numberplate from a distance of 20m and they fear he will attempt to drive in the meantime.

6000 lose driving licence for poor eyesight in 2011 - and that's a 39% rise in the number of bus and lorry driver

Number of motorists who lose licence due to poor eyesight more than doubles since 2006

 

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Guardian show that since the powers were introduced in 2013, police forces across Britain applied 631 times to revoke licences based on failed attempts to read number plates.

In 609 cases the DVLA revoked the drivers’ licences.

Ms Rason said: “I had no idea until now that it was being used so widely, and it is very satisfying to know it is making a difference,” she said.

“That’s more than 600 people who could still be driving, perhaps without even knowing there was a problem with their sight.

“You can’t say that in every case they would have killed somebody, but it is very likely to have prevented fatal accidents and other casualties.”

If a banned driver continues to drive, they commit a criminal offence which may lead to their arrest and their vehicle being seized.

Sue Harrison, Essex police’s assistant chief constable, said: “I very much welcome this new procedure.

“It is a positive step forward and will enable our officers to immediately refer serious cases to the DVLA.

“This new procedure is a great testament to Jackie’s relentless determination and resilience, which I highly commend.”

Last year, Brake, the road safety charity, called on the government to introduce compulsory regular eyesight testing for drivers, as a survey with Specsavers and RSA Insurance Group showed strong public support.

Almost nine in 10 (87%) are in favour of drivers having to prove they have had a recent sight test every 10 years, when they renew their licence or photo card. Research indicates this change in the law would significantly reduce the estimated 2,900 casualties caused by poor driver vision each year.

The survey shows why government action is needed, with a quarter (25%) of drivers admitting they have not had their eyes tested in more than two years – despite research showing you can lose up to 40% of your vision before noticing the difference.

Many drivers are also failing to respond to warning signs in regards to their vision: one in five (19%) have put off visiting the optician when they noticed a problem. In addition, a shocking one in eight drivers (12%) who know they need glasses or lenses to drive have done so without them in the past year.

Brake, Specsavers and RSA's survey of drivers also found:

More than 1.5 million UK drivers (4%) have never had their eyes tested;

One in eight (12%) have not had their eyes tested for more than five years; and

Of the 54% of UK drivers who believe they don't need glasses or lenses to drive, one third (33%) have no way of knowing this for sure, having not had an eyesight test in over two years.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
BigglesMeister | 9 years ago
1 like

Ban all human drivers, bring on the Google Cars!!

http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2015/05/14/googlecars-1-million-mi...

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

1. ianrobo's right: it's drivers not watching out.
2. Of course, blind drivers are a menace - but only 600 have been nabbed. Certainly no more than 1% of those out there who can't see properly or are not earing their glasses.

Avatar
ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Well eyesight issues would explain why so many cyclists can not be seen

Avatar
brooksby replied to ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes
ianrobo wrote:

Well eyesight issues would explain why so many cyclists can not be seen

They'd have to actually _look_ before we could determine if their bad eyesight was stopping them seeing cyclists...

Anyway I'm still half convinced that my bike has a chameleon circuit

Avatar
ianrobo replied to brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
ianrobo wrote:

Well eyesight issues would explain why so many cyclists can not be seen

They'd have to actually _look_ before we could determine if their bad eyesight was stopping them seeing cyclists...

Anyway I'm still half convinced that my bike has a chameleon circuit

I think you may have missed the irony in my post.

Avatar
brooksby replied to ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes
ianrobo wrote:
brooksby wrote:
ianrobo wrote:

Well eyesight issues would explain why so many cyclists can not be seen

They'd have to actually _look_ before we could determine if their bad eyesight was stopping them seeing cyclists...

Anyway I'm still half convinced that my bike has a chameleon circuit

I think you may have missed the irony in my post.

Not at all - just extending your point  3

Avatar
Username replied to ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes
ianrobo wrote:

Well eyesight issues would explain why so many cyclists can not be seen

No. Motorists seem to CHOOSE not to see cyclists. I can prove this by going for a ride with my daughter, either on her bike beside me, or on her child-seat on the back of my bike. In both cases drivers will give us much wider space than when I ride on my own.

I'm not sure how to take this. On the one hand I'm pleased they respect my daughter's life and are taking care around her but on the other hand it means they must see me, when solo, equally well and simply choose to put my life in danger the rest of the time.

Avatar
csgd | 9 years ago
0 likes

Are the tests adequate? This blog about an RAF instructor's views would seem to be saying very intensive testing and training is required, with heavy enforcement and excellent infrastructure to prevent problems. Near misses?

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

If you can't clearly read the screen or keypad of your mobile phone then you shouldn't be driving.

Avatar
kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Any company employing or sub-contracting drivers should have to do a quick eye sight check - simply have the driver stand the relevant distance from an A4 printed eye chart, if they can't read the necessary lines then they don't get the work. It's so simple it could be mandated to change the chart every year or two and re-test.

For everyone else a check should happen with the theory part of the driving test and at regular intervals after that - with the interval length being based on the rate of eyesight loss for different age groups.

Avatar
mike the bike replied to kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes
kie7077 wrote:

..... For everyone else a check should happen with the theory part of the driving test ...

Every candidate for the practical part of the test has their eyesight checked before they drive.

Avatar
Spangly Shiny | 9 years ago
0 likes

631-609=>600
Weird arithmetic if you ask me.

Avatar
Angelfishsolo replied to Spangly Shiny | 9 years ago
0 likes
Manglier wrote:

631-609=>600
Weird arithmetic if you ask me.

It is not 631 minus 609. It is 609 out of 631 which is >600

Avatar
ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes

I just want to scream !!

Have regular 10 year tests, surely that is the answer to a lot of this. I passed at 18 and at 38 had to start wearing glasses to drive, why not retest me ?

Latest Comments