Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2006
DMV Problems - Part Four
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Dan Abel - 31 Oct 2006 19:54 GMT I posted the first parts of these about two years ago. My wife and I have had valid driver licenses for 40 years. Two years ago, both my wife and I failed the vision screening. We had to have an eye doctor examine our eyes and fill out a form. Then we had to take a driving test to prove that we could drive with only one eye.
We were both told that this was a one-time process, and we wouldn't have to repeat it ever again.
A month ago, I got a letter from the DMV, saying that I needed to renew my license, and I needed another form from an eye doctor plus a driving test. So I went to the DMV to argue with them. That didn't work. The woman was very nice, but she didn't know anything and didn't do anything. Only "THEY" knew why "THEY" had sent that letter, and "THEY" always had good reasons for what they did. All that she knew was that unless I coughed up the form, "THEY" weren't going to process the renewal. As for the driving test, that depended on what the doctor put on the form. So I got a blank form.
It's a US$10.00 copay to see a doctor at my HMO, so that wasn't a problem. I hadn't seen an OD in two years, so it was time anyway (although I had seen three OMDs, one numerous times). So I made an appointment.
I decided to read the form more carefully this time. There was a section for me to fill out, and a much larger section for the eye doctor. As I got to the bottom, I saw the problem. On the first form, my OD checked the box to say I needed to be rechecked in two years, even though he had checked the other box saying I was stable. The instructions on the back were clear that whatever he checked, that defined the term of my license.
I saw the OD, and he confirmed that I only used one eye, and that eye required no correction for distance. I made sure he didn't check that two year box.
I went back to the DMV, thinking that everything was cool. The clerk didn't know what buttons to press on her computer, and had to go for help. I had already paid for five years, so she didn't know how to enter my renewal without specifying a fee.
I was sent to the picture line to get a picture, a thumbprint and have the vision screening. The clerk wanted me to put on my glasses. I explained that I didn't bring them and didn't use glasses. She pointed to the form, where it said I was 20/50 uncorrected in the right eye, and 20/25 corrected, and explained to me that it meant the doctor said I needed to wear glasses to drive! So she went ahead and tested me uncorrected. Now, the way I get 20/25 in the right eye is to keep turning my head around and waiting for the letters to come into focus. When I got my head in a certain position, everything came clear. I suspect that I was looking around the edge of some lens in the machine. Whatever. She said I passed, and didn't need a driving test.
I got my new license in the mail last week. It's good for three years.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Quick - 31 Oct 2006 20:17 GMT > Now, the way I get 20/25 in the right eye is to keep > turning my head around and waiting for the letters to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I got my new license in the mail last week. It's good > for three years. I have to say I'm glad you live a good ways away from me.
-Quick
Dan Abel - 31 Oct 2006 22:51 GMT > > Now, the way I get 20/25 in the right eye is to keep > > turning my head around and waiting for the letters to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I have to say I'm glad you live a good ways away from me. I see 20/20 uncorrected in the left eye. Two eyes are better than one, but one is sufficient for driving.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Quick - 01 Nov 2006 02:52 GMT > In article > <0jN1h.6264$s6.4322@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Quick" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I see 20/20 uncorrected in the left eye. Two eyes are > better than one, but one is sufficient for driving. That's much better. I understood it as your "good" eye being 20/50 and correctable to 20/25.
-Quick
Fidelis K - 01 Nov 2006 02:28 GMT >> I got my new license in the mail last week. It's good >> for three years. > > I have to say I'm glad you live a good ways away from me. > > -Quick I hope you live far away from me. Most traffic accidents happen because of people with bad attitude.
Quick - 01 Nov 2006 03:02 GMT >>> I got my new license in the mail last week. It's good >>> for three years. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I hope you live far away from me. Most traffic accidents > happen because of people with bad attitude. Bad attitude? So if somebody said "I can drink a 6 pack of beer in an hour and pass the manual sobriety test (because I practice it all the time)", and I had made the same comment, would that be a bad attitude?
Dan clarified my mis-reading of his post but I don't think I misread yours.
-Quick
Robert Martellaro - 31 Oct 2006 22:01 GMT >She pointed >to the form, where it said I was 20/50 uncorrected in the right eye, and >20/25 corrected, and explained to me that it meant the doctor said I >needed to wear glasses to drive! And if you refuse to get corrective lenses they should have given you a restricted license (such as daytime only, outside mirrors, limited driving area, etc.)
I see quite a few older hyperopes who are also in denial, typically with a distance Rx of about +1.50D, insisting that they never had to wear glasses for driving, can see just fine thank you, and only need glasses for reading.
Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr
Dan Abel - 31 Oct 2006 22:57 GMT > >She pointed > >to the form, where it said I was 20/50 uncorrected in the right eye, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > area, > etc.) The OD refused to give me a prescription. He said that there was no point, since I didn't use the right eye and didn't need correction for the left.
> I see quite a few older hyperopes who are also in denial, typically with a > distance Rx of about +1.50D, insisting that they never had to wear glasses > for > driving, can see just fine thank you, and only need glasses for reading. Is this both eyes or just one? Part of the reason that my wife got nailed two years ago was that she really did need glasses. She has a +1.0 in the left eye for distance, with a plus 2.0 for reading. Her right eye is "match", meaning that it isn't correctable.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Robert Martellaro - 01 Nov 2006 22:30 GMT >> >She pointed >> >to the form, where it said I was 20/50 uncorrected in the right eye, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >point, since I didn't use the right eye and didn't need correction for >the left. Sorry, I thought the right eye was the "good" eye. I had to go back to your previous DMV posts (two years ago!) to understand your situation. The retinal detachment in the right eye must have involved the macula, leaving you with distorted central vision. Sounds like California has very strict vision requirements and testing.
It does sound like a lot of trouble to go through just to keep the corrective lens restriction off your drivers license though. Keep in mind that eyeglasses will provide some protection from eye injury. Might be worth considering for the healthy left eye.
>> I see quite a few older hyperopes who are also in denial, typically with a >> distance Rx of about +1.50D, insisting that they never had to wear glasses [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >+1.0 in the left eye for distance, with a plus 2.0 for reading. Her >right eye is "match", meaning that it isn't correctable. Both. I hope she's using Trivex or Polycarbonate (virtually unbreakable) for the lens material.
Regards,
Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr
Dan Abel - 02 Nov 2006 01:41 GMT > It does sound like a lot of trouble to go through just to keep the corrective > lens restriction off your drivers license though. Keep in mind that > eyeglasses > will provide some protection from eye injury. Might be worth considering for > the > healthy left eye. Yes, I have been advised that wearing glasses for eye protection is a good idea.
As far as my drivers license, though, I was told that if I get in an accident while not wearing corrective lenses when my license says they are required, that my insurance company can try to refuse to pay. Since I haven't worn correction on a regular basis for years, my license needs to match what I am doing.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Jacksonfu - 21 Nov 2006 14:23 GMT Hi, you guys, I am going to share a good thing to you! I think this information may help you. I bought a pair of eyeglasses online on eyebuydirect.com last week. The glasses I ordered is frameless plastic, which looks cool, and I'm quite satisfied with the high quality with the low price (the second one just cost me $15.95, complete with my prescription). The shipping is quick too (got mine in 12 days). After that, they gave me a coupon code to encourage me to buy more. With this code, I can buy any eyeglasses sale with 5% off! It's cool and the price will be lower. But I'm not going to buy another one in this year, because I had bought 3 pairs within 2 month on this site (two for me, another for my father), but I hope this code will be useful to you! The coupon code is "glasses923". Their website is www.eyebuydirect.com
|
|
|