A lawsuit by a pedestrian who was hit by an 80-year old driver alleges that the driver’s vision should have been tested. New Jersey officials admit that they have not been enforcing the mandatory 10 year eye examinations for drivers. The Motor Vehicle Commission stated that the agency was underfunded and they also wanted to avoid inconveniencing drivers. The agency might start vision testing again when they issue digital drivers licenses.

My question is, what is more inconvenient, a 30 second eye test or being railed by a licenced driver who can’t see? The pedestrian in this case, Vincent Corso, is still hospitalized with head injurys, that sounds like a major inconvenience to me.

via The New York Times

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Learn More)