Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can't see feck all without my contact lenses in, but I do need to know just how bad my eyesight is.

Best thing would be to take a road trip to test how bad my eyes are, so can anyone recommend a decent route - maybe just 50-80 miles - so I can get a decent impression how far gone my eyes are ?

I may take wife and kid in the car as well, just for the crack.

I filled-up the car yesterday, but had no intention of making any trips at all - just felt sorry for the empty petrol tank.

It's a pointless exercise unless your end point is a beauty spot whereby you can all sit down by a river, relieved that you didn't end up in A&E or worse. It will also add to the occasion if the day of travel coincides with your wife's birthday...

Its one rule for them another for us poor bastards who get packed off to our blue collar jobs whilst the virus is still in full throttle.

I cant visit my loved ones and now I have to return to work with no idea of when I'll feel safe to actually see them because of having to use the tube and trains.

This lot make me puke.

the biggest death toll per head of the population in the world and people think Boris is doing a good job.

My parents took us for a trip to a newly opened section of motorway and service station when we were kids and to impress a friend of the family from Ireland. I don't think it was to test anyone's eyes but for some reason Cummings excuse has reminded me of this pointless journey from my child hood.

In deed that is why government had a recent campaign. Quite simple - can you read a number plate at 20 metres (that is 3 3/8 of a chain in old money). So rather than drive 60 miles, or go to spec savers Dom could have simply paced out 20 metres to another can and checked he could read the number plate. I think I may e-mail him this advice


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dvla-asks-drivers-to-look-again-in-new-eye-735t-campaign

I suggest hammering it down the A20/M20 to the coast, the roads should still be fairly quiet, and you should be able to reach 120mph no problem. If you can avoid cars and other objects at that speed, then I'd say your eyes are OK.
Rather short but Brenchley Gardens is good, nice straight road, you could get up to a ton before checking to see your brakes work at the speed camera. If you miss the speed camera then your eyesight is not up to scratch. I expect that is why there is so much speeding traffic on this road. For a further challenge you could continue up towards Brockley where road narrowing, pedestrians and cyclists provide further challenges, perhaps 80mph is more suitable. If you do have an accident with another road user or pedestrian you have the valid excuse that it was OK for Dom and he writes the rules.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Do you have a link to this? The only one i could find was on the 24th July
    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...