Scottish Elises

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45387965

Immediate licence revoke does seem a little on the harsh side though.....

Not sure I'd agree with it being harsh. If you can't read a reg plate from 20m away then you've got to wonder what else you won't see

I was thinking more along the lines of those who have glasses / contacts and perhaps forgot to wear them. In this scenario a 3 or 6 pointer would be more appropriate I feel rather than immediate cancelation of licence.

Might encourage people to wear their glasses if they need them or not drive. Bit like not driving if you're still pissed.

Easy for me to say though as a non glasses wearer. I take your point that 3 or 6 points would be more appropriate.

Reading a reg from 20m is a requisite for the test so why not carry it forward?

Not harsh, I suspect it's based on information gleaned from accidents, I'd say it's negligence on any road users part to drive without sufficiently good vision...

It's a particular bee in the missus' bonnet (she's an optician) and trust me, the stats do support the severity.

About f*cking time IMO.

I am in agreement in that if you can't see properly you have no right driving, but I think it is more likely to be sensationalist journalist as a Police force (or 3 ) cannot take a license away. That would be the courts or DVLA.
I can see 3 Chief Constables being sued if their Officers follow up on the stated intentions.

I would much rather that resources are spent on this.

Don't see why 'not fit to drive' shouldn't apply to vision. Could be managed through the existing system as Dangerous driving.

Pretty obvious that if you can not see sufficiently well you should not be driving.

If you need glasses wear them, if you don't and get caught then all for losing your right to drive.

tut