HC Deb 02 April 1973 vol 854 cc189-200

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

I wish to raise, at this rather late hour, the question of minimum eyesight requirements and the issue of driving licences. For the United Kingdom the regulations currently in force are to be found in SI. 1970/170, which lays down that a person may not be granted a licence unless he or she is able, with or without glasses, to read a registration mark fixed to a motor vehicle at a distance of 25 yards, assuming that the registration mark contains letters and figures 3½ inches high. This is virtually the same minimum requirement as in the original regulation, made in 1930, SR & TO 1930/938.

My first point to the Minister is that this minimum requirement in the United Kingdom is a very low standard of eyesight. The conditions would be met by a person with absolutely no vision in one eye and what the opticians call 6/15 vision—quite defective vision—in the other eye. It is by a long way the lowest eyesight standard laid down by any of the major nations for motorists.

I want to quote one or two examples because they are significant.

In Belgium drivers must not have less than the ability to read a number plate at 32 yards in each eye—not in one eye —with or without spectacles. In addition, checks are made of the eye movement, colour blindness and adaptation to glare.

In France drivers must not have a vision standard of less than the ability to read a number plate at 53¼ yards in one eye and the ability to read a number plate at 6.6 yards in the other. If spectacles are prescribed for driving they must be worn. Checks are also made on night blindness, eye muscle balance, field of vision—this is sideways vision, which is very important in terms of accidents— and adaptation to glare.

In Germany the standard is extremely high. Every driving licence applicant must undergo a sight test which checks the daytime sight in both eyes. The testing is done with the aid of a vision screener. Each eye has to have what is called 6/6 vision, which is the ability to read a number plate at 66.5 yards, and sideways vision must be normal in both eyes. Stereoscopic vision—the ability to perceive depth—must be normal. In Germany in 1970 there were 1.7 million applicants for a driving licence and more than 101,000 failed the sight test.

In Italy drivers must have a standard of vision of not less than the ability to read a number plate at 53¼ yards in one eye and the ability to read a number plate at 25 yards in the other. In addition, there are checks on the sideways vision, night blindness and colour vision.

In Portugal drivers must not have a standard of vision of less than the ability to read a number plate at 40 yards in one eye and the ability to read a number plate at 13.3 yards in the other. Here again, there are checks on the field of vision, colour blindness and stereopsis— depth perception.

In Spain, if a potential driver has sight in one eye of less than the ability to read a number plate at 6.6 yards, the other eye must not have a standard of vision less than the ability to read a number plate at 53¼ yards. If spectacles are worn, the applicant must produce a medical certificate allowing spectacles to be worn during driving, and he must have a spare pair. Other visual checks are made. There must be no night blindness, there must be no diplopia— double vision—and the adaptation to glare must not exceed 70 seconds.

In Sweden the standard of vision required is the ability in one eye to read a number plate at 47 yards and in the other eye the ability to read a number plate at 20 yards. If subsequently during his driving career a driver loses vision in his best eye to below 6/12—that is, his ability to read a number plate with his best eye falls below 32 yards, and that is not correctable by the use of spectacles, he is taken off the roads and prevented from driving.

In Switzerland sight tests are given to each applicant before the driving test. It is significant that the sight test is performed by opticians using what is called a vision screener. A driver has to have an ability in one eye to read a number plate at 66.5 yards and an ability in the other to read a number plate at 53¼ yards. The Swiss are careful about the way in which they treat motorists. They do not permit them to drive with night blindness, with diplopia or with any major reduction of steropsis—that is, ability to see in three dimensions—any squinting or any diminution of the field of vision; and the applicant whose visual standard is adequate only with spectacles or contact lenses must wear them for driving and carry a spare pair.

My final example is the United States of America. With a few minor exceptions, all States require an ability to read a number plate at 32 yards with both eyes. In addition, in 16 States sideways vision is checked, in four States colour blindness is checked and in 29 States perception of depth is tested. There are periodic vision tests in 40 States, and all States issue limited licences for anyone wearing spectacles. Why is this country the sole exception when others insist on such high standards before motorists are allowed to drive on the roads?

The second feature that I wish to discuss is that even the pitifully low minimum standard laid down in the United Kingdom is not tested by qualified opticians. Furthermore, it is estimated that it is avoided by 300,000 vehicle licence holders now driving on our roads illegally.

In 1972 the Optical Information Council made a check of 22,000 drivers. On its percentage calculations of those who failed the minimum test in the United Kingdom—a 2 per cent. sample— the council estimated that up to 300,000 drivers were driving illegally because they had less than what in effect was half vision. The director of the council remarked: It needs a qualified optician to provide a dear old lady with glasses for knitting while another man"— presumably the driving instructor— with no qualifications can certify a driver fit enough to see to drive tons of metal on our roads at quite high speeds". He suggested that there should be proper optical tests at three-year intervals.

There are examples of avoidance that are interesting. At Whickham, near my constituency in Northumberland, an optician recently reported a case of a person, known to him as a registered blind person, who drove a motor vehicle with a licence. Another optician recently examined a patient who was unable to achieve one-sixth uncorrected vision—he was almost blind. The optician was astonished to find when he asked the patient what his job was that he was a driving examiner whose duties, inter alia, included certification of his pupils as having adequate eyesight within the current regulations.

The OIC made a survey of coroners and road safety officials which showed that those with practical experience of road safety were mostly in favour of much more stringent testing of drivers. About two-thirds of the coroners did not approve of the Minister's proposed new licence proposals—I hope that this is noted—to extend a normal driving licence until the driver reached the age of 70 with a once-for-all fee of £5. They would like a more severe test than reading a number plate at 25 yards.

Since this issue has been the subject of increased public debate in the last few weeks I have received some interesting, and in some cases tragic, letters. I received a letter from a gentleman in Hull, which I will pass to the Minister. He says: I am 54 years of age and have been driving since 1937. About 14 months ago I noticed a deterioration in my eyesight. He said that he was driving an average of 75 miles a day. The letter continues: Overtaking safely was next to impossible … driving at night in the face of oncoming traffic, even with the best of dimmed headlights, was the same as driving with my eyes shut for the lights to me were absolutely blinding. He reports a subsequent medical history leading to an operation on one eye for cataracts in October last. He is now awaiting another operation on the other eye. He says: I knew I was a danger on the road but I had to drive in my job … what could I do? Put myself off the road and out of work? … I am not proud of having driven at all with my eyesight in such a bad state but I appreciate the dilemma of the half-blind driver, especially when his livelihood depends on his driving. I understand his problem. The only comment I make is that perhaps he is better out of that job than killing himself or someone else prematurely. It is amazing that he could have driven for so long with his eyesight in such a condition.

I will refer to one other letter which was sent to the Minister for Transport Industries and of which I have a copy. It is dated 19th March and was written from Sidmouth, Devon, by a driver who says that he is not worried about his bad eyesight because he compensates for it by driving more slowly and being more attentive. He says: The eyesight test demands that a licence plate be read at a minimum distance of 75 feet. I can only read the licence plate numbers at a distance of 10 feet and yet I have no trouble driving and have had the same vision for 10 years. I will not wear glasses. This letter should be sent to the local police since it has a clear address and the sender is openly admitting to the Minister that he is so blind that he should not drive but does not care two hoots about the law and will decide for himself what he will do. This is not good enough, and it is typical of the attitude of so many motorists, that they will make up their minds whether they are safe to be on the roads.

This troubled me deeply. I wrote to the Minister for Transport Industries. The Under-Secretary wrote a reply to me which I found rather misleading and somewhat apathetic. He said that: research studies have failed to establish any significant correlation between road accidents and vision defects among the driving population. It is fair for me to request that a much more extensive research programme be carried out by the Department before reaching any conclusion, favourable or otherwise, on that statement. The Minister says: it seems likely that drivers with defective vision compensate for their deficiency. I have a letter from a constituent pleading with me, not that I have the power, to get her father off the road, because he is compensating for his grave eyesight deficiency by hogging the middle of the road. This lady says in her letter that he is a danger to himself and to the traffic in his way. He is compensating but creating a traffic hazard.

The Minister concludes that: compulsory period eyesight tests for 17 million drivers would impose heavy costs on the community which could not be justified". How does he know what the cost will be since I have never suggested what the frequency of the tests should be? I do not claim to know how frequent they should be. I merely suggest annual testing. Clearly, something is radically wrong, and something should be done. Why do we in the United Kingdom, alone among the civilised countries, allow these regulations? Why do we allow people who are half blind to drive? Why do we not check up on how many people are evading the law? When they are caught out—and they are occasionally— they often receive ridiculous fines, as in the case reported in The Times on 20th July 1971 when a Mr. Grimes, who could read a number plate at only 9 yards, caused an accident and was fined £10 and had his licence endorsed.

Why does the United Kingdom have the lowest eyesight test for drivers of all the major motor driving nations? Are all the others wrong? Are they out of step? Are they stupidly bureaucratic? Or is it that we are too conservative in our Ministry to re-examine in depth the 1930 test in the light of traffic conditions in the 1970s? I do not pretend to know all the answers to this problem. But I suggest that I am on a strong point which is worth examination in depth and objectively.

Pedestrians and other drivers need to be free from the threat of the half-blind drivers on our roads. Some of these half-blind drivers need protecting against themselves before they kill or maim either themselves or others.

I hope for a more helpful comment from the Minister this evening than I have to date received in correspondence. I assure him that many of my hon. Friends, not that they are here at this time of night, have expressed deep interest in this question and will not let it rest until greater satisfaction is received on the matter.

11.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) on raising this subject on the Adjournment this evening. It is a matter that he and a number of his hon. Friends have pursued.

I welcome the opportunity which the debate gives me to emphasise again the great efforts which are being made to reduce the heavy toll of casualties on our roads. It also gives me the opportunity, in one particular context, to explain why a measure which at first sight must appear sensible and attractive is not justi- fiable at all. I freely concede that when I first came to the Department a year ago I might have argued very much on the lines that the hon. Gentleman has done tonight.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that over the past five years both this Government and their predecessors have introduced a number of road safety measures. In 1967 the laws relating to drink and driving were introduced, the result of which was an immediate annual saving of 40,000 road casualties. More recently the present Government raised the minimum age for motor cyclists to 17, the same as that for cars, confident that this would achieve a substantial saving in fatal and serious injuries by discouraging the youngest and most vulnerable drivers from starting their driving careers on the vehicle which involves a greater risk. Further dramatic savings can be expected from the Government's large-scale campaign to encourage the wearing of seat belts.

All these steps were taken as a result of a very careful consideration of the effort in manpower and money resources which they required. The question which has to be asked in relation to any proposals for changes in the procedures relating to eyesight testing is whether such proposals can be similarly justified— whether, in the current rather awful jargon they are cost-effective.

The hon. Gentleman has outlined accurately the present arrangements. The statutory minimum eyesight requirement for drivers is the ability to read a clean six-figure number plate at a distance of 25 yards. It is an offence to drive when unable to meet the minimum standard of vision, and the police have powers to check the eyesight of any driver whom they have reason to suspect is driving with defective eyesight.

Regarding the gentleman from Hull, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he signs a declaration on his driving licence application form every three years. As to the gentleman from Sidmouth, I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what has been said. I have not seen that particular letter.

At the moment there is no evidence, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said, that there is a significant number of drivers who cannot meet the legal minimum requirement. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the ability of drivers to pass the eyesight test, which is a simple one, is checked by driving examiners as part of the driving test itself, and at each three-yearly renewal of licence the driver must state whether his eyesight is still up to the legal minimum standard. If the debate does nothing else, I hope that it will emphasise that point, because it is a proper declaration and I hope that people take it seriously.

The hon. Gentleman voiced a number of criticisms against the present procedures, and there have been criticisms from the Association of Optical Practitioners, supported from time to time by other bodies such as the British School of Motoring and RoSPA. What do they recommend? They recommend that there should be a raising of the present minimum eyesight standards for drivers, and they say that there should be regular checks on drivers' eyesight.

They demand not only higher standards of visual acuity but the inclusion of checks for all sorts of other visual characteristics, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They include field of view, muscle balance and colour vision. They back up their case by referring to some of their own tests carried out at motor shows and elsewhere over a number of years.

These tests are alleged to have shown a high failure rate among members of the public who have taken them. This, of course, shows only that the standards used are higher than those on which the statutory eyesight test is based. It does not necessarily show that the statutory standard is too low. The Association of Optical Practitioners also claims that a small percentage of its sample—about 2 per cent.—would also have failed the statutory number plate test, and that is where the hon. Gentleman got his 300,000 figure. This, if true, says something about the problems of enforcing medical requirements, but nothing in itself about the need for higher standards. Some may even argue, although I should not, that unless these 2 per cent. are having accidents, which is not true, the current standard may be too high.

Some searching questions were asked by the hon. Gentleman about the fact that a number of countries have a much stricter legal eyesight requirement than ours. As far as I am aware—I have done quite considerable researches into this— none of these foreign standards is based on scientific evidence; they originated from intuitive guesses as to what the standard should be, as I believe is fairly common in this field. Be that as it may, one of the tests, though not the only one, is whether they have a better road safety record than we have. Of all the countries which the hon. Gentleman listed, with the possible exception of Sweden whose accident record, by and large, is equivalent to ours, none has a better record.

I am sure that it has not escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the EEC Commission has published a draft directive on the harmonisation of driver licensing legislation. This proposes periodic medical examination for drivers, with special emphasis on eyesight. We believe that these proposed medical requirements are excessive and unrealistic, and there would be a huge cost there which we do not think could be justified by the meagre prospect of accidents which they might save.

Another criticism made by the hon. Gentleman, and by a number of people outside, is on the proposal to introduce driving licences which are valid until the 70th year, with the consequent loss of the three-yearly declaration of medical fitness by the driver on the renewal of his licence. I accept that there is some force in this criticism, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the views of coroners, but I should point out that in place of the three-yearly declaration the new legislation would impose on drivers a statutory obligation to notify the Secretary of State of any change in their medical condition which is likely to affect their ability to drive safely. More than that, the Secretary of State will be given much more effective powers to investigate any alleged case of medical unfit-ness brought to his notice. But that is a matter that we can debate as and when the legislation comes before the House.

The present statutory requirement has the great merit of being easily understood by drivers generally and of being simple and quick to administer by the police and by driving examiners. The driver himself can quickly check at any time whether there has been any significant deterioration in his eyesight, as presumably the gentleman in Sidmouth did.

These are substantial advantages which we should not lightly abandon. They would be outweighed only by evidence that the present arrangements contributed noticeably to the toll of road casualties. Here we come to the nub of the debate. Is there any evidence that the changes in current practice recommended not only by the hon. Gentleman but by various organisations would be worth while in terms of the likely contribution to accident prevention?

The main research on this subject was a large-scale study carried out in California between 1962 and 1966, during which more than 17,000 drivers were tested. I am told by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory that the test conditions and the way the tests were carried out were as near ideal as possible. The conclusion reached was that there is no correlation between poor performance in eyesight tests and a tendency to have accidents. To put it bluntly, drivers with very good eyesight are just as liable to have accidents as those with eyesight which meets only the lower standard we require. To most people this is a somewhat surprising result. One explanation is that driving habits change as vision deteriorates. As people get older there may be a compensating tendency, for example, to avoid night driving, but we do not know.

Our own Transport and Road Research Laboratory keeps abreast of all the research in this field, and, indeed, is constantly in touch with the California tests and other tests. None of the subsequent research projects reports a significant correlation between defective eyesight and road accidents.

The Government would look most carefully at any new research results or sug- gestions for new lines of research brought to their notice. I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to feel that we are complacent and have a completely closed mind on the subject. But I stress that it would have to be new research results or suggestions for new lines of research not currently being covered by our experts at TRRL. In the meantime, I believe that, unless we get this sort of information, research resources could be better employed in other areas which have a greater potential for accident prevention.

It is estimated—again these figures are well correlated—that medical factors of any kind, including eyesight, contribute to less than 1 per cent. of road accidents. In view of this and the results of the relevant research studies to date, the Government take the view that higher eyesight standards and more elaborate testing procedures would produce no worthwhile casualty savings. They could exclude from driving large numbers of people who can, and do, in practice drive quite safely. Periodic checks, whether for 17 million drivers or for drivers over 40 as suggested by AOP, would be a wasteful use of resources in the light of the accident statistics.

I began by referring to three or four road safety measures which have been, or are about to be, introduced and whose net benefits were confidently predicted. There is still much to be done, and many other ideas are under consideration within my Department and are being worked on by the TRRL, ideas which it is hoped will help to check the appalling annual slaughter on our roads. But we are determined first to concentrate on those measures where we are convinced that their inevitable cost and inconvenience are matched by a worthwhile saving of life and limb. Not to do so would be wasteful, and when resources are limited, no matter how much we would wish it otherwise, to be wasteful where safety of life is concerned would be inexcusable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.