REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-26-2011, 08:56 PM   #1
Retired Traffic Cop
 
skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nanoose Bay, BC
Posts: 9,023
Thanked 115 Times in 66 Posts
DriveSmartBC - Corrective Lenses

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
Advertisement
__________________
Have you ever met anyone that would admit to being less than a better than average driver ??

Learn more at DriveSmartBC
skidmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:09 PM   #2
Rs has made me the man i am today!
 
ninjatune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LMD
Posts: 3,145
Thanked 228 Times in 71 Posts
Anyone had a disputed VT (drive contrary to restriction) go to court with the ACC suggesting that their laser sugery was their "corrective lens"?
ninjatune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 02:42 AM   #3
【=◈︿◈=】
 
- kT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ricemond
Posts: 4,919
Thanked 2,027 Times in 545 Posts
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
- kT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 08:37 AM   #4
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjatune View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
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).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 08:16 PM   #5
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
...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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 08:20 PM   #6
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
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*
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 10:09 PM   #7
& Associates Inc.
 
ruthless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Canada Eh
Posts: 1,625
Thanked 1,215 Times in 409 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by - kT View Post
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
__________________
Ruthless and Associates Inc
Serving Revscene proudly since 2008
ruthless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 08:10 AM   #8
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 01:36 PM   #9
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
CA_FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Around the Town
Posts: 303
Thanked 65 Times in 29 Posts
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.
__________________
CA_FTW Says ^^^^^^^^^^
CA_FTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:17 PM   #10
xxx
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: vancouver
Posts: 1,371
Thanked 758 Times in 237 Posts
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
Oleophobic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 05:12 PM   #11
Banned (ABWS)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Delta
Posts: 864
Thanked 47 Times in 36 Posts
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...
baggdis300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net