[Drivingforfun]

Not really sure what advice I’m looking for but just wondering what people have to say and thought it might make an interesting discussion!

I seem to have on-off double vision; a handful of times over the last year it’s made me not drive

I’m tempted to see what a professional has to say but during some quick research noted that if diagnosed with double vision, you must inform the DVLA and stop driving

Clearly this puts me off seeing someone; I am able to drive 99% of the time and am capable of and trustworthy enough to “ban” myself from driving on the rare occasion that my vision is bad. I don’t think being handed a total driving ban makes any sense?

I have a distant relative who, after a lot of persuasion, reluctantly got help for alcoholism. On their 2nd session they were told that if they continued with the sessions the DVLA would be informed and they must stop driving, so of course they stopped going and started drinking (and driving while drunk) again

Obviously in my relative’s case the issue could be seen as self-inflicted and less deserving of sympathy, but it’s kind of similar in that it's an example of the system in place causing more harm than good?

I guess my question is: is the idea of self-incriminating by getting help for medical issues counterproductive, in that it makes the roads more dangerous (i.e. by causing people like my relative to carry on drink-driving), or is there not really a better alternative?

[TC1474]

There are a number of issues you need to consider.

Firstly, does your double vision come on suddenly or do you get something like an advanced warning that it is about to occur?

How long does it usually last for?

Who else knows of your condition?

By not reporting it, you potentially are making your insurance null and void (and you know the risks that runs?)

You are right that double vision is a reportable condition. Failure to do so can open open up all sorts of cans or worms, especially if you are involved in a crash and the subsequent implications with your insurance company.

You have a pre existing medical condition. If this was found out be the other side in the event of a crash, even though it may not have been your fault you can guarantee that condition will be used against you to prove contributory negligence.

You need to speak to a proper Optician and get his/her guidance if for no other reason than peace of mind and the safety of your passengers and other road users.

I have lost count of the number of crashes caused by some issues with eye sight which could have been quite easily rectified had they sought professional advice or treatment.

A good example is depth perception issues. I have conducted many an advanced test where I thought that the driver/rider's judgement was a bit suspect, and sure enough the Optician has confirmed that there was a depth perception problem which is easily rectified without surgery or anything like that.

There maybe a similar simple solution to your problem.

Whether you decide to seek proper advice is down to you, but there are potentially many implications that you may not be aware of in the event that you choose to hide the condition, the question is? Is it worth it?

[Rolebama]

I would get your eyes checked asap. Very few problems with eyes are self-healing, and it could be a symptom of something treatable now.

[olduser]

Sorry this thread is old but, I don't think anyone has said double vision (diplopia) is correctable with the appropriate lenses. In younger people it can be corrected (re train the eye muscle's) but if you are older it's more difficult to correct, if it is correctable, resulting in using lenses.

I think, wearing glasses is not a banning thing.

As to it coming and going, it's a matter of fatigue.

When fresh, not tired, you may be forcing your eye muscle's to work together or your brain just ignores one of the double images but when tired it's all too much effort, so you see both images.

As mentioned above see an optician for an eye test but tell them why you want one.

Best wishes.

[NMNeil]

@TC1474 And the OP has already told the world about his condition by posting on this forum, which won't help if he has an accident.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

@TC1474 And the OP has already told the world about his condition by posting on this forum, which won't help if he has an accident.

If there was an allegation of poor or bad eyesight that was the cause of a crash (we stopped using the term accident about 15 years ago), then the driver would be required to undertake a formal eye test, but you cannot be forced to take that test.

So it becomes subjective in that yes information has been given on a public forum, but it is not conclusive proof that he has defective eyesight, and the Police are not permitted to conduct eyesight tests, they can only check a drivers ability to read a number plate at the prescribed distance of 22.5 meters.

From a civil claim point of view, different rules apply again and therefore it would depend on the nature of the crash, but unlike giving out details or video evidence pertaining to a crash, stating that he has an eye problem for the main part makes no difference in the same way that I can can talk about my heart failure condition and I will at some time require a defibrillator fitted and I am a type two diabetic.

[olduser]

The term accident has always bothered me, in a lifetime of driving I rarely seen anything other than crashes, and if I add in near misses the picture doe's not change.
By this I mean, there has been a human failing, someone made a wrong choice.

Yet looking at the dictionary, accident - something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone: Leaves me with the feeling that a lot of crashes do fit the definition of accident.
The key words being, not expected, not intended.

If I am wearing my Crash hat (pardon the pun) if A caused the crash, then A must have broken the rules, therefore A must be punished but B often didn't help to prevent the crash.
But when a child runs into the road and gets injured/killed, the child is now A in the above, that doe's not go down well with the general public, the general cry will be the car was going too fast, and in a sense that's correct, the car was going too fast for the victim but if the car had been stationary, and our child had run into it he could have been injured.

Looking at it with the accident hat on, when A did whatever they did not expecting or intending to cause a crash, that then makes me think, is it education that is needed here rather than punishment, and that would probably apply to B as well?

Re the health comments - Best wishes.