News, Links and Commentary
Friday, June 23, 2006
Driving Badly
A Pennsylvania man with retinal degeneration is accused of vehicular homicide, according to Pennsylvania's CentralDaily.com ('Driver to go to trial in death of cyclist', 22 June 2006).
Thomas Fry was diagnosed with a vision impairment in 1981 but began driving again three years later. Two eye specialists who saw Fry have been cross-examined as to why they did not inform the state that Fry should not be allowed to drive. Fry's acuity is less than 20/100 (or about 6/30 in metric), which means that he can see at a distance of 20 feet, or 6 metres, what most people can see at a distance of 100 feet, or 30 metres.
Why would someone with impaired vision continue to drive? Fry has a valid Pennsylvania driver's licence. State College ophthamologist John Fisher gave Fry an 'emergency' examination in 2002 but did not inform the relevant state department that Fry should not be driving. When Fry's attorney Ron McGlaughlin asked Fisher if he would ask Fry for a ride:
People are willing to weigh up 'how badly' they need to get where they're going against the risk of being involved in an accident. Bohdan Kulakowski, the cyclist killed in the accident involving Fry, may have weighed up the risks of cycling on a route shared with motorists, but did he take into consideration that some of those motorists may have impaired vision? Would you?
Deciding that one's vision is no longer adequate to drive safely is difficult. But the decision not to risk the lives of strangers, or even loved ones and yourself, should not be. If your vision is affected by retinal degeneration, please consider carefully the possibility that you're placing lives at risk and, if necessary, ask your ophthalmologist for their honest opinion - would he or she accept a lift home with you?
Thomas Fry was diagnosed with a vision impairment in 1981 but began driving again three years later. Two eye specialists who saw Fry have been cross-examined as to why they did not inform the state that Fry should not be allowed to drive. Fry's acuity is less than 20/100 (or about 6/30 in metric), which means that he can see at a distance of 20 feet, or 6 metres, what most people can see at a distance of 100 feet, or 30 metres.
Why would someone with impaired vision continue to drive? Fry has a valid Pennsylvania driver's licence. State College ophthamologist John Fisher gave Fry an 'emergency' examination in 2002 but did not inform the relevant state department that Fry should not be driving. When Fry's attorney Ron McGlaughlin asked Fisher if he would ask Fry for a ride:
Fisher said first, to muted courtroom laughter, that "it would depend on how badly I needed a ride" and then added that "I guess I wouldn't ask" Fry for a ride.
People are willing to weigh up 'how badly' they need to get where they're going against the risk of being involved in an accident. Bohdan Kulakowski, the cyclist killed in the accident involving Fry, may have weighed up the risks of cycling on a route shared with motorists, but did he take into consideration that some of those motorists may have impaired vision? Would you?
Deciding that one's vision is no longer adequate to drive safely is difficult. But the decision not to risk the lives of strangers, or even loved ones and yourself, should not be. If your vision is affected by retinal degeneration, please consider carefully the possibility that you're placing lives at risk and, if necessary, ask your ophthalmologist for their honest opinion - would he or she accept a lift home with you?
Comments:
The fallen biyclist was my father. He was a careful and safe bicyclist. He was in plain sight, on a straight. Only a blind man could have not seen him. And so it was. the driver drove for 20 years, driving his family around. Sounds like the Fry family were all in denial and ultimate and continuous diregard for public safety.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 4:36 am
: 4:36 am
