Forwarded message:
From: Self <Single-user mode>
To: cvnet@skivs.ski.org
Subject: Driver Self-Assessment
Reply-to: irwind@manukau.ac.nz
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:10:15
Attention: Hoover Chan
Thank you for publishing my enquiry on research linking poor
drivers' vision with vehicle crashes, a few weeks ago on CVNet.
I would like to pass on my thanks to the many good people who went to
so much trouble to provide me with assistance.
There is a new matter in which I would like to interest optometrists,
and possibly other researchers, for the purpose of assembling
information to back up arguments for certain minimum visual driving
standards, and the need to maintain these by way of vision testing of
drivers at regular intervals. The reason for this enquiry is because
the New Zealand government is to thoroughly review its legislation on
driving standards next year, and I need to make a case based on as
much pertinent evidence as I can assemble.
Of course, if anyone can tell me where I can find a report showing
that this same work has already been carried out, I would welcome a
reference so that I can obtain that additional information for myself.
I propose a selected survey of patients who present, either with
symptoms of difficulty with distance vision, or if their distance
sight when assessed monocularly - either unaided if no Rx is
presently worn, or with any glasses that are already worn for
distance - is 6/12 (20/40) or worse, in the better eye.
These patients should be asked to self-assess their NIGHT DRIVING
VISION ONLY, with respect to acuity and to disability glare.
Acuity disability at night should be rated as (1) No problems noticed
(2) Moderately unsafe (3) Severely unsafe (4) Dangerous to self
and others.
Glare disability should be rated (1) Nil (2) Moderate (3) Severe.
The reason for the lowered distance vision should also be noted
(Myopia, Cataract, etc) as well as the vision or visual acuity
(Right, Left, and Binocularly) with which the patient presented. I
am not really interested in knowing as well the acuity that was
achieved after re-examination, although this and any other additional
data which is considered to be worthy of collection would be very
welcome.
If you are interested in the subject, and are prepared to expend the
extra time and effort necessary to carry out the survey effectively,
I believe that you will be very surprised to discover just how much
difficulty drivers complain of when their vision is as good as 6/9
(20/30) or often better, even in the absence of disabilities such as cataract
that are generally acknowledged to cause problems far worse than the
acuity ratings would suggest.
The survey will not in itself provide an answer to the vexing question
of appropriate minimum driving standards with respect to acuities,
but if the results I have recorded since I began the survey myself a
few days ago are anything to judge by, it will provide an excellent
starting point, based upon the opinions of those who might themselves
be most at fault.
I have asked all optometrists in New Zealand to participate in the
survey from December through February 1996, and if others elsewhere
are please willing to assist as well, I will be most grateful. The wider the
range of answers the better, and because the persons to be surveyed
are defined clearly enough, and since only two questions are to be
investigated in a subjective manner, I believe that it is feasible to
carry out the study in this way.
I would welcome any contact via the Internet, but my postal address
is:
Hunter's Plaza,
Gt South Rd, Papatoetoe
Auckland, New Zealand
Fax 09 2777-381
Yours faithfully,
Denis Irwin