DriveSmartBC - Corrective Lenses

[skidmark]

When I worked in traffic law enforcement it was standard procedure for me to scan the rear of every driver's license that I examined. Often I would find the restriction 21, corrective lenses required printed there. If the person was not wearing glasses I would look carefully at their eyes to see if I could see contact lenses. If they were there, I could see them most of the time.

When I could not see either glasses or contact lenses it was time to ask and there were usually one of two responses. The first was that they had undergone laser eye surgery and didn't need them anymore or something along the lines of "I've forgotten them." The onus was now on me, what to do? Is this driver able to see well enough to continue or did I need to intervene. The restriction would not have been placed on the license if there wasn't a good reason for it.

If you have had corrective eye surgery, it is up to you to go to a driver service center and take the necessary steps to have the restriction removed from your license. Failing to do that means that you are leaving your fate at the roadside in the hands of the enforcement officer. You do the same thing having decided to leave your driveway without taking needed glasses or contact lenses with you.

The protests were generally quite strong when I ordered the driver off the road until a qualified driver or the necessary lenses arrived. My duty was to protect you from yourself and other drivers from you. Failing to do so would put me in a position of both failure in my duty and of legal liability. The police are not qualified to verify your eyesight at roadside, so please take the corrective lenses restriction seriously.

Reference Links

[ninjatune]

Anyone had a disputed VT (drive contrary to restriction) go to court with the ACC suggesting that their laser sugery was their "corrective lens"?

[- kT]

when i got my N, i was wearing contact lenses. the person issuing my license simply asked me if i wore glasses. she seemed surprised when i responded yes, and i think, had i said no, she would've left that off my list of restrictions

is asking the only way they know? not that it was a big deal to me at all, my vision is too poor to even make it outside without glasses or contacts, much less drive

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by ninjatune

Anyone had a disputed VT (drive contrary to restriction) go to court with the ACC suggesting that their laser sugery was their "corrective lens"?

You wouldn't have to...

Originally Posted by skidmark

If you have had corrective eye surgery, it is up to you to go to a driver service center and take the necessary steps to have the restriction removed from your license.

...you'd just have to argue that the corrective lenses were no longer necessary. And, I expect, provide proof of that (a post-surgery eye exam dated before the VT was issued would suffice, I would think).

[zulutango]

...except the restrictions are still listed on your DL. Same thing as me passing a L rider in the MST motorcycle test, but unless he goes to ICBC and has them removed, even though he is qualified to have them removed, the restrictions are still in effect. Another example, your period of prohibition on your DL is over but you don't go to ICBC and have your DL renewed, ergo you are no longer prohibited but you are still not licenced.

[Soundy]

Granted, but I would think (hope!) that if you could prove you'd had the surgery and no longer required the corrective lenses at the time the VT was given, the court would be forgiving in a VT dispute... at least for the first time.

Not getting one's license updated is probably a common and easy-to-make... uh... oversight *rimshot*

[ruthless]

Originally Posted by - kT

when i got my N, i was wearing contact lenses. the person issuing my license simply asked me if i wore glasses. she seemed surprised when i responded yes, and i think, had i said no, she would've left that off my list of restrictions

is asking the only way they know? not that it was a big deal to me at all, my vision is too poor to even make it outside without glasses or contacts, much less drive

When you get your L or N test they make you do a simple visual test using a machine...definitely not as detailed as an eye exam though

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Granted, but I would think (hope!) that if you could prove you'd had the surgery and no longer required the corrective lenses at the time the VT was given, the court would be forgiving in a VT dispute... at least for the first time.

Not getting one's license updated is probably a common and easy-to-make... uh... oversight *rimshot*

My experience has been that there will be a finding of guilty (because technically the restrictions existed while the reasons for them no longer existed) but the doccumentation will need to be produced and Crown could request an adjournment to examine them and could possibly require the disputant to produce the Doctor who performed the operation for questioning to verify the facts. Most often the JP will convict but suspend the fine or assign one of $1 or something like that. The disputant would have to appear at court for the process though so there goes a 1/2 day of work. Easier to just go to the access centre & yank them when you get repaired.

[CA_FTW]

I didnt update my DL for 2 years after my Laser Surgery..

I was pulled over at a check and the cop asked me about it, and then reminded me to go do so..

i did. and now its all fine.

[Oleophobic]

Got my L before my eyesight deteriorated.
then started wearing contacts.
never had the restrictions placed on my licence when i got my N and class 5.

but of course I'm not stupid enough to drive without glasses/contacts

[baggdis300]

i never had the restriction on my N, then the lady added it on my class 5....

i passed the "sight" test for my L, so they didn't put it as a restriction. But i was wearing glasses for class 5...