Re: Deaf driver with glass eye banned - "I was reading the rev

On 14 Jan, 10:49, "Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:00bbd4c9-e9fe-453b-87df-f6baae7299c2@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 11 Jan, 21:27, "Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7183730.stm
>
> >> The driver claimed that he was looking at the rev counter and thought it
> >> was
> >> the speedometer, as an excuse for driving at 88 in a 50 zone.
>
> >> This raises a question: why do some manufacturers (including Peugeot,
> >> whose
> >> speedometer dial is used as an illustration to the story) still make rev
> >> counters which are calibrated as 10, 20, 30 etc x100 rpm, instead of
> >> calibrating them as 1, 2, 3 etc x1000 rpm using the normal engineering
> >> practice for expressing large or small numbers as powers of 1000?
>
> >> That would have avoided any speedometer/rev-counter confusion. (Of course
> >> there would still be confusion if engines turned at between 10,000 and
> >> 99,000 rpm!)
>
> > Why would anyone with a glass eye and lacking proper stereoscopic
> > vision ever be allowed to drive in the first place? Obviously they
> > cannot judge distances and what if they get dirt in their one
> > remaining eye at high speed? Next thing we know they will be giving
> > driving licences to the blind! Is it any wonder that so many
> > vulnerable peds and cyclists get mown down by these dangerous drivers?
>
> I think stereoscopic vision and judgement of distances works best at close
> distances. If the objects are considerably further away than the spacing
> between the eyes, the ability to judge the distance is much worse because
> the two eyes see views which are much more similar to each other than if the
> object is close - the brain probably regards it as "infinity".
>
> But field of view will be reduced a bit on the side with no eye and as you
> say there's no redundancy of a second eye to take over if one eye gets dirt
> in it.
>
> The deafness is also something that the driver needs to compensate for - he
> may be unable to hear other drivers' horns and so will have no warning that
> those drivers are there and that he has strayed into their path.
>
It is bad enough that the safety of other road users depends on the
natural human error of a driver but any kind of cognitive physical or
mental disability added to that is grossly dangerous and should not be
permitted at all on our roads, except possibly using much less harmful
electric wheelchairs or adapted tricycles.

How much longer will this mass slaughter and injury on our roads be
permitted to continue?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.