Another ‘small problem’ to be fixed

THE EDITOR: This is yet another “small something to fix,” if TT is to achieve its stated goal of attaining First World status by 2020. I am referring to the issuance of driver’s licences. The latest brew-hah-hah over licensing office clerks refusing to issue or renew driver’s licences without a person being able to read an eye chart shows up the flaws in the system. The law of the land as far as this issue goes should be standardised and changed, if necessary to meet the needs of a modern society. The licensing officers should have computerised eye testing machines, where a person should be required to read the lines to indicate this vision accuracy; with or without eye glasses.

For those needing glasses, their licence should indicate they are required to drive with their glasses. But the present practice of accepting a “doctor’s paper” as proof is outdated and needs to be done away with. There is too much opportunity for fraud and underhand dealings to allow this practice to continue for too much longer. I believe the laws in this regard should be updated, to include setting what the legal vision requirement should be, along with other factors, such as hearing and physical requirements, for a person to attain a driver’s licence. Then the necessary equipment for testing persons at the licensing office should be purchased and everyone should be tested, to ensure that they meet the required vision standards.

With the testing equipment available today, the clerks don’t have to be eye doctors to tell if a person is visually impaired, and as such, should not be given a licence or to tell that they need to wear their glasses while operating a vehicle on the road. The updating of the old laws and the standardisation of the requirements, along with the proper training of the clerks and licensing officers in good customer relations at the various offices, will go a long way in providing the driving public with the level of service they deserve. It was also curious to note that your article showed that “not only the layman, but even professionals — doctors, lawyers, etc, were subjected to this testing.” It was as if it should be any other way. Why would or should these people be treated any differently; less or more? If the law states that someone must verify their ability to see and read signs on the road to get a licence, then, regardless of their status or position in society, they should be able to pass the test, or not be given a licence. It is double standards and “special privileges” like those that make the “rest of the population” feel they are being discriminated against.

And from your report, they have every right to feel so. Everyone should and must be treated in the same way. Either everyone is required to be tested or no one should be subjected to it or refused a licence because they don’t want to take the test. So, come on Manning administration, 2020 is fast approaching and as the saying goes: “Objects in this mirror are closer than they appear.” I believe that this is one of those “small things” that should be addressed to put the country on the road to “seeing” Vision 20/20 clearly, and would provide tangible benefits to the nation by keeping visually impaired drivers off the roads.

KELVIN C JAMES, Sr
Port-of-Spain