D efective eyesight BY LES OLDRIDGE, A.LR.T.E., A.M. LM.I.
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONE of the lesser-known traffic offences is contained in Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 which provides a maximum penalty of £50 or three months' imprisonment if any person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such that he cannot pass the test used in the driving test. The defect in vision may be one which cannot be corrected or one which for the time being is not sufficiently corrected.
The requirements of this test for the drivers of ordinary vehicles are that the candidate should be able to read in good daylight {with the aid of spectacles if worn) the registration marks of a vehicle with 311n. letters, at a distance of 75ft, or one with 3in. letters at 67ft. If the test is for a mowing machine or pedestrian-controlled vehicle the distances are decreased to 45ft and 40ft respectively.
A police constable who suspects that a person driving a vehicle may be guilty of this offence may require him to submit to a test to see if whether, using no other means of correction than he used at the time of driving, he can comply with the requirements. If a person refuses to take such a test he is liable to a fine not exceeding £50.
What happens if the police stop a driver at night and suspect him of committing an offence against this section? Obviously the test cannot be conducted at that time as daylight is required and although I know of no authority which supports this view it seems sensible for the test to be carried out the following day at a mutually agreeable time and place.
If the driver cannot pass the eyesight test as well as being reported for driving with defective vision he could quite well be reported for making a false declaration to obtain a driving licence, an offence against Section 235 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 with a maximum penalty of £100 and /or four months' imprisonment. This is because on the application form for driving licences there is a question relating to eyesight and if the prosecution can prove that a false answer was made to this question this second offence would be proved. Whether or not the offence of making a false declaration to obtain a driving licence is proceeded with will depend to a large exten1 on how long after the application for the licence the offence of driving with defective vision is detected. As driving licences now las, for three years the period between the application and detection could be as long as the validity of the licence. During the period a three years the offender's eyesight, althougt good at the time of applying for the licence could have deteriorated to such an extent tha he is guilty of the driving with defective visior offence.
It is in this gradual deterioration of driver's eyesight that the risk of a prosecutior may arise. I think there are few drivers whc would knowingly drive a motor vehicle witf defective eyesight but when, over a period o. years, one's sight gradually fails it may not be noticed and the offence would be, quite unwittingly, committed.