Eyesight tests

There you go common sense 'reasonably practicable' response to a known or should be known 'foreseeable' risk or hazard that may not be enshrined in specific legislation yet but "red-tape" that everyone moans about should be expected to follow in due course if they do not do something about it voluntarily.

Red-tape comes when voluntary good practice insufficient to mitigate risk so only got yourselves to blame when over the top stuff lands on ya desk.

We have 11 company cars, 7 cars provided under a car allowance scheme and 5 other employees who are authorised to drive company cars. When Corporate Manslaughter legislation came in we carried out a Risk Assessment and now monitor all the drivers in exactly the same way with twice yearly licence checks, and two yearly eyesight tests. We also issue them with the Highway Code and ask them to confirm they have read and will follow it's requirements as well as our own driving on business policies and procedures.
We also monitor the mileage, servicing and tyres of the car allowance vehicles and any other private vehicles which may be used on company business.
There's no direct legal requirement for all this, but we think it is good practice and regard it as insurance against a Corporate Manslaughter/JH&S claim as well as helping to protect our drivers and the public.
I think there are a large number of companies relying on the 'Grey Fleet' who carry out no checks at all on the condition of the drivers or their vehicles so it is inevitable that one of these will hit the headlines soon!

Eye tests, when conducted under standard conditions, are both objective and accurate; substantially better than many other 'medical' tests undertaken. The DVLA have selected a number plate test that does not correspond exactly to one line of letters on a standard Snellen chart used by GPs and opticians; it would be between 6/9 and 6/12, but both are good tests of visual acuity. The requirement for Group 2 (truck and bus) drivers is set against the Snellen chart.

There are two main problems with vision that affect driving. One is the ability to see at distance (acuity), so short sighted people as well as those with conditions such as astigmatism are dangerous unless their vision is correctable. The other is the visual field; if someone has a narrow visual field they will miss things happening to either side such as people running into the road.

Many people who are slightly short sighted can compensate when young because the eye lens is flexible. As it stiffens with age, their ability to focus worsens, so those who are short sighted often first need glasses in their twenties and thirties, and as their eyesight worsens they need stronger and stronger glasses. If they never have their eyes tested, they may well reach the point at age 30 where they would fail the number plate test. I see many patients who continue driving well beyond this point, not having their eyes tested until they have become very short sighted and very dangerous on the roads.

The DVLA recognise this by requiring eyesight tests for Group 2 at age 45 and every five years after this. I always recommend to employers that they should set this as their minimum requirement for all vocational drivers whether Group 1 or 2 and should ideally test visual acuity at the start of employment and every five years after.

Visual fields can be damaged by some medical conditions, particularly diabetes, and drivers are required by law to notify DVLA if they develop field defects. Many do not; they are effectively driving without insurance in these circumstances, but are unlikely to get caught out. If drivers have accidents the police will breathalyse but never test eyesight. Andrew's comment that some individuals fail the number plate test but 'drive safely' underlines the problem. They may drive safely if they are the only drivers on the road, but they are definitely unsafe when driving in traffic.

So in summary, I would advise employers to require regular eye tests for all vocational drivers whether the law specifically requires this or not. It could be considered your duty under the Management of Health And Safety at Work Regulations.

Tony

Andrew, thanks for devils advocate response that i shall counter for the sake of a good discussion.

1 eyesight tests also include an eye examination for disease that a GP is also qualified to undertake under DSE regulations.

2. refractive should also include a determination whether client may be photo-sensitive and/or night myopic risk factors specifically for drivers

You are however completely right regarding the basic nature of the sight test in that due to time constraints and cost of completing a full sight test that would take up to or in excess of an hour the optician is unlikely to pick up visual functional problems exacerbated by poor screen setup mythically or subjectively affecting up to 58% of DSE users (HSE RR 561 2007).

Police and emergency service drivers routinely have sight tests and whilst not as strict as those for pilots nevertheless suggests that "good eyesight" corrected or otherwise might be mitigative of a foreseeable risk factor.

With regard to Screen Fatigue that also affects those with 20/20 vision so to suggest it is solely linked to poor prescription is a cop out as eyestrain is not solely linked to refractive deficit or 58% of DSE users would be prescribed screen glasses and 15 years after the introduction of regulation "no one" would be experiencing occupation illness due to this particular hazard.

Denial that there is a direct or even indirect chain of causation between eyestrain or visual stress and adaptation of the visual system as a well meaning attempt to reduce the distress experienced by the individual called GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) is nothing more than expedient.

It is well known as are the changes to visual function but as a simple inexpensive and objective risk assessment is not currently available the affects are dismissed as temporary although the individual is liable to make increased number of work errors and may be at risk of mishap for some time after coming off-screen at the end of their shift - another driver risk issue.

Fatigue will present or manifest in "vigilance decremation" or loss of attention and whether temporary or longer lasting that has to constitute a "hazard".

Whether that hazard is making minor errors on screen in the safety of an office environment or the minor errors have more serious consequences operating machinery and/or a vehicle still needs reasonably practicable intervention just as one would where alcohol or drugs impaired operation.

Whether laughing out loud, eating or drinking, fiddling with a radio or using a mobile phone while driving loss of attention or ability to remain vigilant due to fatigue, poor or low vision are all avoidable driver hazards accepting that without an eye sight test the driver may not even know they have a visual deficit.

Poor or low vision will affect the ability of the driver to drive with due care & "attention" and as a driver of various vehicles from motorcycle to lorries i am only too aware of how many drivers just "do not see" you coming.

It is therefore just a matter fo time before an employee has a "didn't see it" accident, discovers that they have a visual deficit and blames the employer for not having a policy for mitigating this particular subjective risk..............

As it is "known" or should be known that 16% of drivers are driving with uncorrected refractive problems it is foreseeable that the cause of an accident will be attributed to the drivers poor or low vision.

Not an "if" just a "when" statement in terms of elf-n-safety.......

Should they classify wearing glasses as disabled? Should disabled people be allowed to drive due to safety factor? I think the questions are endless.

The relationship beteween eye test results and risk of motor vehicle accident is very grey indeed if you exclude extreme loss of visual accuity from the discussion.

The number plate test has been shown to be unreliable: excluding from driving those who are more than able to drive safely and including within driving those who have high risk of accidents especially at night.

If you ask your GP to interpret an eye test based on wall charts they will tell you they don't quite see the relationship between the standard wall charts and the number plate test. This is because there is no clear relationship.

There is no standard method of assessing the more risk relevent cataract, tunnel vision and the many other eye problems, except in extreme cases.

DVLA approval to drive has to be sufficient for risk management purposes until accurate tests are developed.

Research is very unhelpful in this area of risk management.

So who do you ask for an assessment of risk? How many opticians can risk assess a workplace?

Compulsion to test would be unworkable. Results could not be evaluated for the great majority.

Finally, the relationship between use of DSE and deterioration of eye sight is a well-known myth. HSE stopped pursuing this line of attack more than a decade ago when research emphatically demonstrated that DSE use did not cause, accelerate or aggravate loss of visual accuity. The testing regulation is still on the statute books. There is no risk to this aspect of health. Fatigue is however linked to poor prescription. The regulation therefore provides a mechanism for reducing eye fatigue. Is this a duty that should fall to employers? Debatable.

There is no eyetest to filter the effects of being underinformed.

To specific legislation or not ? Is not the question when completing a risk assessment, and that is legislated for, where there is a "forseeable" risk that is "known or should be known" that requires prevention and/or mitigation !!!!

It is therefore "reasonable" to seek to reduce or prevent potential operator error due to omission to introduce "practicable" policies that whilst may not be required 'in law' would nonetheless obviously be "good practice".

DSE users may be provided with PPE (personal protective equipment) in the form of "screen glasses" and there could therefore be a good case for drivers being provided with specific "driving glasses". (Drivers glasses would be distance & maybe reactolight but not reading glasses just the same as DSE assessment where screen glasses are of a specific focal distance for the task at hand)

In either case operators should be completing a risk assessment prior to operation of equipment along with an induction course outlining both pre-operational guidance and good practice in terms of "do's & don'ts".

Otherwise emloyers who "know or should have known" of an increasingly publicised, in the public domain, risk of hazard in around 16% of drivers and 58% of DSE operators will find courts not very simpathetic to any claim of ignorance of the riskssss...... simple'sss

Ian

Thank you for rasing this the requiremeng for an eyesight test may be just one of a number of requiremenst that as employers we are not requiring from our staff who use thier vehicles in the course oif thier employment.

I am part of a medium sized public organisation employing in excess of 6000 staff and also volunteers. The issue of the 'Grey Fleet' (where employees using thier own vehicles in the course of thier employmnet) and how it should be regulated is moving up the agenda.

From the point of vicarious laibility, the potential for Corporate manslaughter and Health and Safety legislation.

Current organisational guidelines only requires the production of a certificate of insurance covering business use, when teh employee first makes a claim or changes thier vehilce.

No eye sight tests or other checks.

I would be interested in others experiances and any controls put in place or liability incurred.

Peter Goodall

Is there any legal requirement to have eye tests for employees who drive as part of their duties?