How to cheat the DVLA's visual field test.

[allen]

I've got to take a DVLA visual field test in a month or two, and because of an eye condition (that DOESN'T affect my driving), I might fail. Failure means automatic loss of driving licence - quite a blow after many decades of accident-free driving.

Any tips for 'cheating' the machine? They try and make you keep your head dead still (unlike how we all drive) - so is it worth moving my eyes left and right, as I do on the road, to see the soppy little points of light?

A.

[ummmm]

I wouldn't think so!

How can an eye condition not effect your driving if it might make you fail a test?

[ojread2]

why would fail an eye sight test but are sure it doesn't impede your driving?

[ojread2]

lol great minds n all that ..

[mccfluff]

if you have an eye condition that means you will fail the dvla visual field test then your a danger to others on the road and you shouldn't have a bloody license

[allen]

Can I modify my question and request sympathetic answers only, please, and preferably from people who understand the complexities of visual fields and their testing?

Ta.

[ummmm]

No....although I am sympathetic. My kids are blind in one eye...

If you can't pass a test you shouldn't be driving. It really is as simple as that.

[ojread2]

so, what is the limit of your vision?
I would be sympathetic, but you are wanting to cheat and eye test that could put someone else's like in danger

[ojread2]

life not like

[237SJ]

Is this for glaucoma? As you know you have to rest your chin and forehead on the machine so you can`t move. I would have thought that if you move your eyes to follow the lights, you would miss even more of the ones that are showing on the opposite side so your idea probably wouldn`t work anyway.

[jake-the-peg]

I guess whether or not if affects your driving is the reason for the test!

I note from this site though

//The problem arises, however, when there are equivocal field losses that only just encroach into the permitted field for driving. These may not necessarily be repeatable especially in the elderly who can have problems mastering the perimeter, or in patients with early glaucoma or lightly photocoagulated diabetics. To be fair to these patients, it is important to test them on more than one occasion to enable an appropriate decision to be made regarding their driving ability.//

http://www.mrcophth.c...s%20for%20Driving.htm

I don't know how authorative this is and whether or not it applies to your case but it sounds as if they may have to do more than one test on you in order to fail you.

If that is the case then you'd want to make sure that they do observe this requirement.

[ojread2]

my guess is binocula vision

[Baldric]

allen, Ref; your post at 11:33, if you have defective eyesight you should not be driving, so NO, I'm not sympathetic, what you're suggesting would put lives at risk.

[MoonRocker]

Any chance you could expand on the eye condition that doesn't effect your driving but could possible impede vision. I'm curious as to what that could possibly be.

[york310]

We all have to meet the same driving standards as a legal requirement including the ability to read a number plate at the given distance and to have a certain full field of vision horizontally and vertically measured( with both eyes open).

You cannot fool the machine. It checks to see at which point you are looking and measures the accuracy of the test by counting if you click too many times as well as too few.

Do the test required correctly and if you are in the early stages of whatever condition you have then you are unlikely to have an issue.mfor things like glaucoma it would have to affect both eyes severely before it impeded your visual field to fail this test.

[allen]

To describe the test for those unfamiliar with it.

You have to sit at a machine, chin on one point, looking directly at a single point of light. Then when tiny points of light come up at various points on the screen in front of you, you push a button.

Thus, it is supposed to look for blind spots, for areas of your retina which aren't functioning properly.

Trouble is, this isn't how you drive. You drive scanning left and right constantly, or rather you do if you're a good driver, on the look-out for hazards at the extremes of your left and right vision.

On the machine, if you miss a tiny point of light to the very far right, and the very far left, the odds are you will fail the test, even though in real-life conditions you might easily have picked up these things.

The machine isn't concerned with real life, or with driving ability, simply with picking up these points of light being seen by the retina.

The Esterman test, as it is called, wasn't designed to test drivers' eyesight, but it is all they've got.

I believe in safe driving; I passed the IAM test, and drive by its rules. I would happily submit to a driving test any day of the week! (And the condition is glaucoma, but I didn't want to say so originally as people see Glaucoma a bit like Cancer - something to be shuddered about, rather than understood).

A.

[MoonRocker]

I see, so if you did the standard "read letters off the wall" test in the opticians would you do ok at that?

[jake-the-peg]

OK so it sounds as if they need to do multiple tests to reach a conclusion - you want to make sure they do.

Whether that vision defect does or doesn't affect your driving is contentious.

Periferal vision is important in picking up obstacles especially things like kids running out from between cars.

You may think you look about a lot but your eyes don't see while they're moving - nobody's do - you can't treat a condition like this by asking someone whether they think they're fit to drive and just trusting them to be accurate, and impartial.

No use in railing against a system you can't change in any case. - Look at the appeals procedure etc. and prepare your next step.

However you probably also have to accept that at some point you're going to have to hang up your keys and start thinking about how you'll manage that situation

[allen]

Moonrocker: yes, the letters on the wall are easy!

Jake: points taken, and of course, if I'm less safe than I was behind the wheel, the day will come (maybe next month) when my driving days are over. No, there's no point in banging your head against a wall, none at all. I would just rather fail a driving test than this darned bit of machinery!

A.

[Canary42]

I have sympathy with allen, and find it a shame that the "holier than thou" attitude seems to prevail rather then the more appropriate "there but for the grace of god" attitude.

As far as the "potential danger to other road users" argument goes, surely that applies to all motorists in that they are propelling a heavy piece of machinery at speed, within inches of something similar in the opposite direction.

I would conjecture that allen, with his IAM skills, is a far safer driver on the roads than many a boy racer, white van man, petrolhead, or drinker. But these people only lose their licences for a very limited period (and then only when they get caught) but for allen it's permanent.

If speedophiles are allowed to cheat by having clear advance warning of where their speed will be checked, surely allen is entitled to 'cheat' the machine if possible (especially as it seems barely relevant to real live driving conditions).

[ojread2]

I am very familiar with this test
I find it hard to believe, that someone who wants to cheat, or should that be needs to cheat, a test that could have serious consequences means those telling him, get admonished for having an holier than tho attitude?
The IAM doesn't test your eye sight, does it?
Whilst your driving may well be good - although only as good on the day of any test - your sight may well not be good enough for you to drive safely. And if you cannot drive safely then it DOES affect your driving

At no point in the OP did the OP tell us anything more than he wanted to cheat a machine test so one can only give any comment based on what is in the OP

Now, if it is still OK to cheat, you go right ahead ....