Assaults on professional carers of elderly people.

This survey looked only at drivers with clearly inadequate visual acuity; it did not consider those with disabilities in other aspects of visual function, such as the visual field. Additionally, it relied on honesty to admit driving with inadequate vision. Despite this rather liberal assessment ofwhat constituted inadequate visual acuity, and the potential for underreporting, 14% of drivers examined were classed as having inadequate vision. This is considerably higher than in previous reports and probably reflects the different populations examined. Though informed that they had no possibility of passing the visual standard and being strongly advised to stop driving, over half of this group admitted ignoring the advice. Analysis of the results suggested that it is not possible to identify people who will knowingly continue to drive illegally by the easily observable characteristics of age, sex, diagnosis, and visual acuity. There is continuing debate over the importance of vision to a driver."5 Whatever the outcome, this survey calls into question the efficacy of the current system for meeting visual acuity standards. Although generalisation is dangerous, it would seem that relying on drivers to stop driving of their own volition is not an adequate policy. Respect for the relevant law is outweighed for many people by personal and social pressures and they continue to drive, both against the law and against advice.