Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2008
driving blind--cheating the DMV
|
|
Thread rating:  |
norman_conway@yahoo.com - 31 Aug 2008 07:07 GMT OK, so this is a great story on how the DMV are really lame, and how easy it is to cheat them and drive when it otherwise should be illegal. Here goes…
I was born a high hyperope, and have worn +8D glasses since before I can remember. In New York, where I grew up, the DMV required not only good visual acuity, but also good visual fields. With the right glasses was able to pass the vision exam and drove fairly unencumbered for a number of years. In 1987, I moved to California for grad school, and so needed to get a CA driver’s license. At the DMV, I took my exam, and when asked if I needed glasses or contacts (I was wearing +8D bifocals by that time, which should have been pretty obvious to the person asking the question) I responded that I did not need glasses and had perfect vision. So imagine my surprise when I got my CA drivers license and it did not list a restriction requiring glasses. Guess what? I can’t see without glasses, but I was very glad not to have to wear them when I went on dates. Not!
Flash forward ten years, and I have developed type II diabetes, despite being very trim and athletic. My vision was starting to suffer and I had a hard time driving at night and so stopped A few years later I found out I had cataracts and needed to have them removed, and so I did. Unfortunately they were unable to place and IOL and so I needed +20D bifocals to see anything. My DMV renewal came about a year after the surgery, and so when the form asked if there was any change in my vision, I put down that I had cataract surgery and could not see much without glasses.
I got my renewed driver’s license in the mail, and was very pleasantly surprised to see that there was still no glasses restriction on it. Unfortunately I began to develop diabetic retinopathy and my vision dropped below the legal limit to drive, so guess what? I was too blind to drive! Not to worry, since I had five years until the renewal. When it came time, I failed the eye exam and was given a vision form to take to my eye doc to fill out. After being really bummed (well, not too bummed since I knew I was going blind anyway) I realized that there was a very easy way to get around this: I would just have a friend take the form to the eye doc, make up some bogus story as to why the DMV wanted it, and get it signed off. He did this, and I dutifully filled in my name and information and sent in the form to get my license renewed.
Funny thing, but I decided to keep the DMV informed about my deteriorating vision as it went from 20/200 to 20/800 to 20/1200. Each time I called, they seemed irritated and just asked me to send in the paperwork. One particularly conscientious girl did in fact revoke my license for a while (and at 20/1200 I guess she should have). Not to worry, though, I just had my buddy go get another eye exam and I sent in the form. To my surprise, they asked me to come in for an eye exam, so I sent my buddy to take it for me. He passed (not even wearing glasses!) and even did the written and road test for me. Great! I still have a valid driver’s license at 20/1200, even if they only gave me a one year limited term license.
Shortly thereafter, I have some laser surgery to clear up some retinal bleeds—still with a valid driver’s license—and I called to report that my vision was now 20/800, meaning I could see some shapes and forms. I must have called four or five times and irritated a fair number of people at the driver’s safety office before someone took action and I received a new request for the vision report to be sent in. My buddy again to the rescue, this time at an ophthalmologist claiming that during a routine eye exam his IOP was elevated (which it was not). He had the form in hand, without my name or information on it, which she filled out stating he (I) had 20/15 vision and full visual fields. I added my name and information on the top of the form and sent it in, and got my license renewed for another couple of years!
Well, if you have read this far it is fair to say that I have not driven for many years now—long before the DMV would have taken it away. But given how lax the DMV was is dealing with so many of these issues I can’t help but playing this game with them to see how easy it is to keep one’s driver’s license if one is really determined. At some point I started calling them monthly to report how bad my vision is in excruciating detail, only to be told that my license is still valid until the expiration date. I am now almost completely blind save for some ability to see shapes and forms in broad daylight, yet I am still allowed to drive in California (and don’t worry, I don’t even think of driving). I think next time I need to go into the DMV office I will have my cane and guide dog with me and see if they will give me a driving test!
It makes me shudder to think of those who are less scrupulous who are still on the road driving despite being visually impaired.
Mike Tyner - 31 Aug 2008 16:39 GMT > It makes me shudder to think of those who are less scrupulous who are > still on the road driving despite being visually impaired. Don't blame the DMV. They don't write the rules, and they can only work with the rules they're given by the legislature.
In Alabama (and other states) there's no scruples involved. You can go into the DMV with a seeing-eye dog. For 25 bucks, they'll hold your dog, show you where to stand, snap your picture and hand you a valid driver's license every four years.
Occasionally performing an examination I'm forced to say "What? You DROVE here?"
For those who say "I'm not restricted" I can only tell them "yes, but if you get in an accident, a smart attorney will come ask me about your uncorrected vision and boom - they gotcha."
-MT
nobody - 31 Aug 2008 16:58 GMT >> It makes me shudder to think of those who are less scrupulous who are >> still on the road driving despite being visually impaired. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -MT In CA, there a person cannot be denied a driver's license due to being blind; I had checked it out some time ago. Probably because of the "disability act" where a disabled cannot be denied anything because of disability.
I even saw a motocycle with disability plates; it was a large cc hefty road runner type..
The +8D is "nothing", I have +9.25 on the right eye & +14.75 on the left; at least until I undergo cataract surgery after my eyes are measured for IOL.
David Robins, MD - 01 Sep 2008 06:14 GMT On 8/31/08 8:58 AM, in article OK-dnW0q6IsDIifVnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com,
>>> It makes me shudder to think of those who are less scrupulous who are >>> still on the road driving despite being visually impaired. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The +8D is "nothing", I have +9.25 on the right eye & +14.75 on the left; at > least until I undergo cataract surgery after my eyes are measured for IOL. I have the opposite problem. Someone comes in with 20/20 one eye and 20/70 in the other. Some dumb employee in the DMV in California has told them they cannot have a driver's license that they need to go to the store for food, and tell them that they HAVE to have cataract surgery done on that other eye before being considered. Much depression and angst on the part of the driver, and phone calls to schedule an emergency cataract surgery.
They don't seem to know that the law requires >20/40 vision in only 1 eye. Even after coming back with the DMV vision form filled out, they are still denied. Finally, going up the chain to a supervisor finally fixes it.
What stupidity.
Salmon Egg - 01 Sep 2008 19:46 GMT > I have the opposite problem. Someone comes in with 20/20 one eye and 20/70 > in the other. Some dumb employee in the DMV in California has told them they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Even after coming back with the DMV vision form filled out, they are still > denied. Finally, going up the chain to a supervisor finally fixes it. My CA driver's license is expiring. Because of poor vision, I am not planning to try renewing it at this time. In my current state, I would be a menace to myself as well as others.
I have had trabeculectomies in both eyes earlier this year. When my eyes settle down after the surgery, I would not be surprised if I can get corrected in one eye to 20/40. Field of vision is another matter. What is the CA code that covers field?
Bill
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 02 Sep 2008 17:32 GMT Bill,
This is what is posted:
==================
California
Call me personally to discuss your situation: tollfree 1-888-610-2020
These are some guidelines:
Visual Acuity:
The department shall not issue a driver's license to, or renew a driver's license of, any person whose best corrected visual acuity is 20/200 or worse in that person's better eye, as verified by an optometrist or ophthalmologist. No person may use a bioptic telescope or similar lens to meet the 20/200 visual acuity standards."
Bioptic Telescope Lenses are permitted for driving.
New pilot program in Northern California includes new assessment tools:
1. Observation for any physical limitations that could affect safe driving.
2. A cognitive exercise that will require you to recall in writing your social security number or your zip code if you have never been issued a SSN.
3. A vision test that measures contrast sensitivity.
4. Perceptual Response Test, if you do not perform well on the standard tests or new assessment tools.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bi...sb_335_bill_200000930_chaptered.html DATE LAST VERIFIED: October 8, 2007
=============
> In article <C4E0C84A.347AE%trasha...@runbox.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bill Salmon Egg - 03 Sep 2008 01:00 GMT In article <438d0b39-1ac7-49ea-b7e6-623178c71048@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bi...sb_335_bill_200000930_chaptered.html > DATE LAST VERIFIED: October 8, 2007 This posting gives no criteria wrt visul field. The given link is broken.
Bill
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 03 Sep 2008 13:16 GMT On Sep 2, 12:32 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > > Bill do you ever get the impression that nobody cares what you post?
Salmon Egg - 03 Sep 2008 18:11 GMT In article <cdf18dfa-e792-440f-932f-c8068bf5398d@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> do you ever get the impression that nobody cares what you post? I don't care.
Bill
MsBrainy - 03 Sep 2008 19:34 GMT I believe p.clark's post was directed to Otis, not you Bill.
>In article ><cdf18dfa-e792-440f-932f-c8068bf5398d@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Bill
 Signature MsBrainy
norman_conway@yahoo.com - 02 Sep 2008 21:08 GMT > In article <C4E0C84A.347AE%trasha...@runbox.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bill There is no requirement for visual fields in CA, other than what the MD/OD is willing to accept in order to write on your vision report that you are able to drive. If you are not referred by the DMV to an MD/OD, then your visual fields will never be checked.
Salmon Egg - 03 Sep 2008 01:10 GMT In article <09101f19-e66b-46b6-934a-358adaf9f92e@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> There is no requirement for visual fields in CA, other than what the > MD/OD is willing to accept in order to write on your vision report > that you are able to drive. If you are not referred by the DMV to an > MD/OD, then your visual fields will never be checked. At least I now know. In my better eye, my visual field deteriorated very rapidly from glaucoma since the beginning of the year in spite of my being under the care of an ophthalmologist. The first trabeculectom was in May.
Bill
Dan Abel - 09 Sep 2008 19:10 GMT > I have the opposite problem. Someone comes in with 20/20 one eye and 20/70 > in the other. Some dumb employee in the DMV in California has told them they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What stupidity. It seems to be built in. Last time I went there, I told the woman that I first talked to, who seemed to be a supervisor, that I didn't know what to do. She said that wasn't a problem, some of the employees didn't know anything either.
 Signature Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net
Dr. Leukoma - 31 Aug 2008 18:44 GMT On Aug 31, 1:07 am, norman_con...@yahoo.com wrote:
> OK, so this is a great story on how the DMV are really lame, and how > easy it is to cheat them and drive when it otherwise should be [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > It makes me shudder to think of those who are less scrupulous who are > still on the road driving despite being visually impaired. I wonder if they have any rules about obtaining a driver's license by fraudulent means?
norman_conway@yahoo.com - 31 Aug 2008 19:53 GMT > On Aug 31, 1:07 am, norman_con...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > I wonder if they have any rules about obtaining a driver's license by > fraudulent means? I'm sure they do, but given that I used to cycle all the time and twice was almost hit by visually impaired drivers, I would be more than happy to have a show down on this. I also have a friend whose daughter was killed by a visually impaired driver. I realise that it is not the fault of the employees, though at least once the DMV employee did the right thing. My sense after talking with them many times is that most there really just do not care; they are doing their jobs and punching the clock.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 01 Sep 2008 00:43 GMT Dear Norman,
Here are the explict legal requirements of the DMV -- for the various States.
http://www.lowvisioncare.com/visionlaws.htm
Best,
Otis
On Aug 31, 2:53 pm, norman_con...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 1:07 am, norman_con...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > times is that most there really just do not care; they are doing their > jobs and punching the clock. Dan Abel - 09 Sep 2008 20:02 GMT In article <8bec1b0f-30b8-4064-81a1-f176d01919db@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> On Aug 31, 1:07 am, norman_con...@yahoo.com wrote: > > OK, so this is a great story on how the DMV are really lame, and how > > easy it is to cheat them and drive when it otherwise should be > > illegal. Here goesŠ
> > driving). I think next time I need to go into the DMV office I will > > have my cane and guide dog with me and see if they will give me a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I wonder if they have any rules about obtaining a driver's license by > fraudulent means? I don't think they call them "rules" here in the US, I think there are laws, and they are pretty drastic when it comes to driver's license fraud.
In addition, insurance companies are always trying to limit their costs for claims. I was warned by a retired highway patrol officer, who teaches driving classes, that if my driver's license says I have to wear corrective lenses to drive, that I better do that, or the insurance company could try to refuse to pay a claim based on my not having a valid license to drive. I had cataract surgery, and don't wear corrective lenses, but I hadn't bothered to get the restriction taken off. I did so, with considerable effort.
 Signature Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net
nobody - 09 Sep 2008 21:13 GMT > In article ><8bec1b0f-30b8-4064-81a1-f176d01919db@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > corrective lenses, but I hadn't bothered to get the restriction taken > off. I did so, with considerable effort. Did you have to get a new photo? or just pay a fee?
Dan Abel - 10 Sep 2008 04:40 GMT > > corrective lenses, but I hadn't bothered to get the restriction taken > > off. I did so, with considerable effort. > > > Did you have to get a new photo? or just pay a fee? Surely you jest. That's not "considerable effort". I had to take a driving test and make two visits to an OD, along with a couple of visits to the DMV. Another photo and the fee were trivial. There was a lot of arguing at the DMV. They thought that I still needed corrective lenses, even though the OD told me that I didn't.
 Signature Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 10 Sep 2008 05:04 GMT Thanks, Dan.
I guess it would take a note from the Ophthalmologist that:
1. You had your cataracts fixed. (Change the diopter power of your eye.)
2. This change of power resulted in the image being placed (correctly) on the retina, and therefore
3. You visual acuity is now better-than 20/40 (the California requirement), and
4. You read the "official" Snellen (3/4 inch letters) in their office. That, and the note from your ophthalmologist should do the trick.
I would hope that would work -- but obviously it does not.
Thanks,
Otis
> In article <lOidnbXkCJ53RVvVnZ2dnUVZ_oTin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Petaluma, California USA > da...@sonic.net nobody - 10 Sep 2008 16:26 GMT >> > corrective lenses, but I hadn't bothered to get the restriction taken >> > off. I did so, with considerable effort. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > arguing at the DMV. They thought that I still needed corrective lenses, > even though the OD told me that I didn't. Probably depend on the clerk/office. Will be having cataract surgery "soon" (go photoed/measured, etc) & will wait until 2010 when I will have to go in for renewal.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 10 Sep 2008 20:13 GMT Dear NoBody,
Subject: Capability of the Retina.
The "standard" of high-quality vision is 20/20, or reading 3/8 inch letters at 20 feet.
The states established their reasonable standard (for "older eyes") as the ability to read 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet with:
1. Both eyes open or
2. With the better eye.
So saying 20/10 (which is very rare) is not necessary.
Passing the OBJECTIVE STANDARD is necessary.
I wish the DMV would use the standard Snellen at 20 feet -- as is the legal requirement, and not their "box" with a plus lens to "simulate" 20 feet.
Just my second-opinion,
Otis
> > In article <lOidnbXkCJ53RVvVnZ2dnUVZ_oTin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2008 05:33 GMT On Sep 10, 2:13 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> I wish the DMV would use the standard Snellen at 20 feet -- as > is the legal requirement, and not their "box" with a plus lens > to "simulate" 20 feet. > > Just my second-opinion, Why? I thought you believed that wearing plus spectacles for near work can adequately simulate optical infinity. You've stated so umpteen zillion times.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 11 Sep 2008 05:58 GMT Subject: Test conditions.
These "boxes" can be not properly adjusted. This is not a "plus" issue.
The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment.
Further, the legal definition is for 20/40 vision.
The 20 stands for 20 FEET.
That mean the test must be done at 20 feet.
And the "40" means 3/4 inch letters.
Why not follow the letter of the law -- so their is no doubt about the resultant reading?
That way if the ophthalmologist confirms 20/40 in his office -- the result at the DMV would be the same.
Just my second-opinion,
Otis
> On Sep 10, 2:13 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > work can adequately simulate optical infinity. You've stated so > umpteen zillion times. Mike Tyner - 11 Sep 2008 13:17 GMT > These "boxes" can be not properly adjusted. This is not > a "plus" issue. Which adjustment goes out?
-MT
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2008 13:35 GMT On Sep 10, 11:58 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Subject: Test conditions. > > These "boxes" can be not properly adjusted. This is not a "plus" > issue. Yeah it is. It's about equivalency. You said that a child can prevent myopia by wearing plus lenses because it creates the optical equivalent of infinity.
> The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment. ...and the instrument can?
> Further, the legal definition is for 20/40 vision. ...and not 10/20, or 0.5, or 1 logMAR?
> The 20 stands for 20 FEET. ....or 6 meters.
> That mean the test must be done at 20 feet.
> And the "40" means 3/4 inch letters. No it doesn't. It means that the letter subtends 5 minutes of arc between the chart and the eye's nodal point.
> Why not follow the letter of the law -- so their is no doubt about > the resultant reading? If I have a 10 foot test distance in my refracting lane am I breaking the law?
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 11 Sep 2008 16:09 GMT Response:
Otis> The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment.
Leukoma> ...and the instrument can?
Otis> Like you TRUST the DMV employee to check?
Otis> The Title of this section is "cheating the DMV". If that instrument is cockeyed, then you are being cheated -- if you verify (or your ophthamologist) verified that you pass the legal requirement) and the DMV has their "machine" out of wack.
Just my second-opinion,
Otis
> On Sep 10, 11:58 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If I have a 10 foot test distance in my refracting lane am I breaking > the law? Neil Brooks - 11 Sep 2008 16:40 GMT Why do you care, Otis?
What you CONSTANTLY advocate is that people with 20/20 or better vision DECREASE their visual acuity.
While they may be following the letter of the law, they may -- in effect -- be compromising their driving abilities in the same way as somebody drinking UNDER the legal limit of alcohol, and then driving.
Just another idiotic Otis-ism.
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2008 18:04 GMT On Sep 11, 10:09 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Response: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis> Like you TRUST the DMV employee to check? Are there moving parts in the instrument such that it can be out-of- focus? I don't know, just asking, but I somehow doubt that it has to be "recalibrated." On the other hand, how could you be sure that the test distance is 20 feet unless you brought your own tape measure, or that the charts from one office to the other had the same amount of luminance, etc.? I would think that the instrument is one way to "foolproof" the testing.
> Otis> The Title of this section is "cheating the DMV". > If that instrument is cockeyed, then you are being cheated -- if > you verify (or your ophthamologist) verified that you pass > the legal requirement) and the DMV has their > "machine" out of wack. Perhaps all drivers should be required to have their vision checked and verified by their optometrists in order to obtain their license, if you think the situation warrants, and take vision checking out of the hands of all lay-persons.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 11 Sep 2008 18:16 GMT What I suggest -- is that the person confirm his visual acuity himself.
I just suggest that the DMV test to their STATED LEGAL STANDARD.
Thus 20/40 (the stated standard) means that a 3/4 inch letters must be read at 20 feet (that is exactly what that means).
That LEGAL standard is not likely to change, now is it?
But if the person wishes to check to see if he can make his vision SHARPER, then all he has to do is to obtain several minus lenses (in 1/4 diopter steps) and determine which lense clear the 20/20 line for him. (If that be his wish, and technical competence.)
Just my second-opinion,
Otis
> On Sep 11, 10:09 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > if you think the situation warrants, and take vision checking out of > the hands of all lay-persons. Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2008 22:18 GMT On Sep 11, 12:16 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> But if the person wishes to check to see if he can make his vision > SHARPER, then all he has to do is to obtain several minus lenses > (in 1/4 diopter steps) and determine which lense clear the 20/20 > line for him. (If that be his wish, and technical competence.) I'm sure that after a certain power, any of a number of lenses will clear the vision, from -1.00 all the way to -5.00 or so in a younger person, of course. In fact, a person might actually prefer how contrasty those letters appear with a stronger prescription.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 10 Sep 2008 02:00 GMT Dear Dan,
Could you go into some detail about your "difficulties" of getting a "clean" DMV Snellen reading.
If I had my vision cleared (and confirmed) at 20/40 or better, then all I should have to do is to go down to the DMV, read their 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet (both eyes open), and, having passed their legal test -- have the "must wear glasses" removed from my license.
Didn't you do exactly that?
Dan -- why is that so difficult?
Thanks,
Otis
> In article > <8bec1b0f-30b8-4064-81a1-f176d0191...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Petaluma, California USA > da...@sonic.net
|
|
|