|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 17:04:35 GMT
I read in the paper today that the distance a driver needs to read a number plate before starting a driving test is to be reduced from 67 feet to 57 feet. Great move..one of my pupils recently had difficulty seeing the signs. I suggested an eye test, and they said he needed vision correction but not more than +1.0. Once he had the new glasses he took his test the following week he passed with three faults. So thanks to the EU we will now have to contend not only with generally bad driving at times but also visually challenged incompetents
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 4, 2011 21:35:02 GMT
My eyesight is perfect. Which is suprising considering....
|
|
|
Post by bicesterox on Feb 5, 2011 0:21:36 GMT
I think instead of reading a number plate they should be able to read a certain level of a normal eye test board, I mean do they actually measure out 67 [57] feet or just estimate it.
On my mates test in Headington [many moons ago] the bloke said read the # plate on that blue escort, he did, then took the examiner to 'that blue escort', got in and passed his test in his own car.
Knew it off by heart, did'nt have to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris1986 on Feb 5, 2011 1:10:27 GMT
It's all very well saying these things for the test but how many people who should be wearing glasses actually wear them all the time they drive? How many peoples eyesight deteriorates when they are above the age of 17 when they passed their test?
It's all very well saying people have to wear glasses but how often in the real world does it get checked? I need glasses or contacts to drive but then I'm quite happy wearing glasses. I've got big ears and a big nose, glasses are required to complete the Mr potato head look so I wear them all the time ;D
But a lot of people have a problem wearing their glasses so once they pass the test they no longer wear them for driving.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2011 15:59:35 GMT
I think instead of reading a number plate they should be able to read a certain level of a normal eye test board, I mean do they actually measure out 67 [57] feet or just estimate it.
The examiner usally gets some tape and measures out 67 feet to be sure. To be honest you can normally try 5 car lengths and it will usually be around 60 feet and if that can be read you should be OK.
It does worry me that the EU beaurocrats have to keep poking their noses into things that should not be concerning them. If something works OK then it should not need fixing. Electric light bulbs were fine over here until they started bringing in strange shape ones that give off mercury, flicker and aren't very bright..and they cost far more too
|
|
|
Post by luvthepink on Feb 6, 2011 23:39:51 GMT
Is it true you are allowed to cross yer hands in certain circumstances when driving now??? it used to be a big no no when i was learning........also while i'm on the subject,does anyone know of an old airfield or similar near Kidlington where i would be able to give my daughter a few instructions on some basic driving skills,like clutch control etc???...cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 6, 2011 23:43:22 GMT
I think instead of reading a number plate they should be able to read a certain level of a normal eye test board, I mean do they actually measure out 67 [57] feet or just estimate it. The examiner usally gets some tape and measures out 67 feet to be sure. To be honest you can normally try 5 car lengths and it will usually be around 60 feet and if that can be read you should be OK. It does worry me that the EU beaurocrats have to keep poking their noses into things that should not be concerning them. If something works OK then it should not need fixing. Electric light bulbs were fine over here until they started bringing in strange shape ones that give off mercury, flicker and aren't very bright..and they cost far more too Yeh what?
|
|
|
Post by stokeu on Feb 7, 2011 0:03:03 GMT
serious question: why would I need to be able to read a car number plate from 67 feet? Is it not all just an arbitary measure based on no practical reality?
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Feb 7, 2011 0:03:16 GMT
I think instead of reading a number plate they should be able to read a certain level of a normal eye test board, I mean do they actually measure out 67 [57] feet or just estimate it. The examiner usally gets some tape and measures out 67 feet to be sure. To be honest you can normally try 5 car lengths and it will usually be around 60 feet and if that can be read you should be OK. It does worry me that the EU beaurocrats have to keep poking their noses into things that should not be concerning them. If something works OK then it should not need fixing. Electric light bulbs were fine over here until they started bringing in strange shape ones that give off mercury, flicker and aren't very bright..and they cost far more too Yeh what? Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) do actually contain Mercury. However it's so little that you'd probably have do eat about ten to do yourself any damage. Well, give yourself Mercury poisoning anyways..... And they should last about 10 times as long as conventional bulbs - saving you money in the long run. They're probably the best bet until OLED technology improves.....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2011 10:29:00 GMT
serious question: why would I need to be able to read a car number plate from 67 feet? Is it not all just an arbitary measure based on no practical reality? exactly and apparently its to do with smaller characters on plates that the distance has been changed. But lets not let facts get in the way of a chance to whinge about EU regulations. Wonder if the distance had been revised upwards, would the Times have been in favour?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 7, 2011 18:17:35 GMT
serious question: why would I need to be able to read a car number plate from 67 feet? Is it not all just an arbitary measure based on no practical reality? exactly and apparently its to do with smaller characters on plates that the distance has been changed. But lets not let facts get in the way of a chance to whinge about EU regulations. Wonder if the distance had been revised upwards, would the Times have been in favour? Good post that^^^^
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2011 18:23:42 GMT
I can't see any point in making the distance for reading a number plate less. All it will do is to allow the visually challenged more opportunity on the road. More cars, more pollution. Why would anyone want to whinge about the excessive EU bureaucracy? I am sure that everything that emanates from Brussels should pass through without the least objection. Oh I forgot it does already. The EU submits the directive and the overpaid swindlers in the parliament give it the nod through. And a lot of people over here think the London Parliament is bad
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 7, 2011 18:29:04 GMT
I can't see any point in making the distance for reading a number plate less. All it will do is to allow the visually challenged more opportunity on the road. More cars, more pollution. Why would anyone want to whinge about the excessive EU bureaucracy? I am sure that everything that emanates from Brussels should pass through without the least objection. Oh I forgot it does already. The EU submits the directive and the overpaid swindlers in the parliament give it the nod through. And a lot of people over here think the London Parliament is bad I can, if the letters on the plate have increased in size, which is what i understand to have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2011 18:35:40 GMT
I am pretty sure that the numbers on the plates have not increased in size. it is only five car lengths to read. If anyone can't read from that distance they need sight correction in the interests of safety
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 7, 2011 18:55:31 GMT
I am pretty sure that the numbers on the plates have not increased in size. it is only five car lengths to read. If anyone can't read from that distance they need sight correction in the interests of safety So what is your argument then? If lots of people with poor eyesight are slipping through the net now then reducing the distance is not really the issue is it. Maybe a compulsory eye test before you can take your test? To me it looks like you are simply having a pop at the EU on the basis of what is not a very covincing argument.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2011 22:12:38 GMT
I don't need to have a pop at the EU. I am pretty sure that would not be necessary as their actions always seem to encourage that. Take your point a compulsory eye test might be the answer
|
|
|
Post by Beav on Feb 9, 2011 0:35:59 GMT
My eye sight is great.
|
|
|
Post by malcolmnl on Feb 9, 2011 6:09:22 GMT
Won't be, if you keep reading page 3 in bed!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 10:38:40 GMT
I don't need to have a pop at the EU. I am pretty sure that would not be necessary as their actions always seem to encourage that. Take your point a compulsory eye test might be the answer Their actions sometimes encourage that I agree, but there is also a section of our media which paints everything they do in a bad light rather than giving us the real facts. As I said before, had they increased the distance, the slant of the article would be exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 17:47:13 GMT
paints everything they do in a bad light
Must be something to do with those compact fluorescent lightbulbs then I reckon
|
|
|
Post by foghornleghorn on Feb 9, 2011 21:35:37 GMT
I can't see any point in making the distance for reading a number plate less. All it will do is to allow the visually challenged more opportunity on the road. More cars, more pollution. Why would anyone want to whinge about the excessive EU bureaucracy? I am sure that everything that emanates from Brussels should pass through without the least objection. Oh I forgot it does already. The EU submits the directive and the overpaid swindlers in the parliament give it the nod through. And a lot of people over here think the London Parliament is bad I can, if the letters on the plate have increased in size, which is what i understand to have happened. I believe this is the original story: Ministers are looking to cut the minimum distance from which a motorist has to be able to read a number plate, following a change in EU law aimed at standardising the rules across Europe. Under the new requirements the reading distance would fall from 65 feet and seven inches (20 metres) to 57 feet and 5 inches (17.5 metres). This is despite the great variation in the size of characters on number plates across Europe. Letters on UK plates are considerably larger than those in France and Italy, but British drivers still have to undertake the same distance test. The changes were reduce the reading distance even further from the 75 feet (23 meters) minimum which was established in 1937.www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8306869/Britains-roads-to-get-more-dangerous-as-eye-tests-made-easier.htmlSo it looks like it's not that our letters have gotten smaller, it's to sync up with the smaller continental letters. If that is the case I would suggest the original post is correct, it is making the test easier for administrative reasons rather than on safety grounds. Doesn't seem the right thing to do in that case.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 20:57:48 GMT
You put it better than I did
|
|