18. Australian bioptic driving history and current status
 |
| A satirical cartoon shows a cheerful low-vision driver in a small red convertible approaching a roadblock labeled “NOT SAFE ENOUGH.” The driver is using an oversized telescope to see ahead. In front of him, a line of suited figures and a medical gatekeeper hold up their hands to stop him, symbolising barriers such as risk aversion, outdated views, and lack of clear standards. Towering behind them, a large figure holding a money bag labelled “LOBBY GROUP OPINION” suggests influence and power shaping the outcome. In the background stands Lady Justice—traditionally a symbol of fairness, balance, and impartial decision-making—wearing her blindfold and holding scales. She appears disengaged, suggesting that while the principle of fair, evidence-based judgment is present, it is not actively influencing the situation. Nearby, her scales sit tipped toward “evidence,” reinforcing the idea that evidence exists but is not driving the decision. Beyond the barrier, a bright open road leads toward a sign reading “INDEPENDENCE,” symbolising the mobility and opportunity that remain just out of reach. |
Bioptic driving first emerged internationally in the 1950s and continues to evolve worldwide through formalised training programs and established clinical practice. (See my Churchill Fellowship travel blogs for international context.) Australia is currently reviewing the 2026 Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines, and there is a genuine risk that bioptic driving may be further restricted or lost. For many Australians with low vision ("mild to moderate"), this is a pivotal moment.
Australia’s bioptic driving practice began in the 1980s, with national medical guidelines formally recognising the use of bioptics for driving in 2012. As in the United States, the field has been shaped by ongoing debate — much of it centred on how evidence is interpreted, how risk is understood, and how professional roles are defined. My Churchill Fellowship aims to bring back contemporary international knowledge on low vision (“mild to moderate”) and bioptic driving to support the development of systems in Australia that are fit for purpose and grounded in rehabilitation, safety, and person‑centred practice.
The documented history of bioptic driving in Australia shows long‑standing differences in opinion across parts of the eye‑health sector, driver licensing authorities, and rehabilitation professionals. These differences have influenced how bioptic driving is discussed publicly and how the guidelines are applied in practice. At times, this has resulted in inconsistent interpretations of the guidelines and uncertainty for both clinicians and drivers. These inconsistencies can limit access to on‑road assessments and undermine the intended purpose of the guidelines: to support individualised, evidence‑informed decision‑making.
Publicly available correspondence and stakeholder interactions also show that some regulatory decisions have been shaped by cautionary or risk‑averse interpretations rather than by data specific to Australian bioptic drivers. This is notable given that there are no known fatalities in Australia caused by bioptic drivers and no research has been conducted on Australian bioptic driving outcomes.
Bioptic Drivers Australia (BDA) continues to raise awareness that low‑vision bioptic driving is a legitimate and viable option under the national guidelines. Carefully selected candidates who complete structured bioptic training programs — both on‑foot and as passengers — can and do demonstrate safe driving performance. For updates, public education, and awareness materials, visit the BDA website.
Bioptic driving practice in Australia
 |
| picture of Dr Alan Johnston source: Eyes on Southtgate website |
In the early 1980s, Dr Alan Johnston introduced the Ocutech bioptic to Australia. As noted in the California section of this series, Dr Johnston had previously studied under Emeritus Professor Ian Bailey (University of California, Berkeley), who spent the 1960s and 1970s in Australia before relocating to the United States.
Emeritus Professor Bailey began his optometric career in 1967 at the University of Melbourne and later at the National Vision Research Institute (NVRI). During the 1970s, he and Jan Lovie conducted the foundational research that produced the logMAR design principles for visual acuity charts and established the logMAR method for quantifying visual acuity. These innovations—developed in Australia—are now the global standard for clinical eye care and research, and they underpin the visual acuity measures used in the Australian Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines. For decades, Professor Bailey has contributed extensively to the practice and research literature on bioptic driving.
Dr Johnston served as Australia’s international contact for the International Bioptic Driving Network. Historical archives chat posts of the website 'Bioptic Driving Network' at: www.biopticdriving.org are up to 2012 and for the Australian context only up until 2001. The chat forum moved to Facebook.
In my interview with Dr Johnston, he explained he had bioptic driving clients across Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Queensland. Until around 2020, one long‑term client from North Queensland travelled annually to see him; that driver now completes assessments within Queensland. Dr Johnston has since passed on his assessment knowledge to Kurt Mechkaroff at Eyes on Southgate, who continues to provide low‑vision and bioptic driving assessments.
 |
| picture of Professor Joanne Wood source: QUT website |
Professor Joanne Wood, from the School of Optometry and Vision Science at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS‑Q), is one of the world’s leading researchers in functional vision, driving performance, and human factors. Her work is among the most heavily cited in Australia on the relationship between vision impairment and driving risk.
In 2013, 2014, and 2016, Professor Wood published a series of studies conducted in the United States with internationally recognised experts in vision and driving—Elgin, McGwin, and Owsley. These studies compared the driving performance of five trainee bioptic drivers with that of licensed, experienced bioptic drivers. The findings showed that:
“While sign recognition, lane keeping, steering steadiness, gap judgments and speed choices were significantly worse in trainees, some driving behaviours and skills—including pedestrian detection and traffic light recognition—were not significantly different to those of the licensed drivers.”
Professor Wood concluded that these results provide valuable insights for the development of targeted bioptic driver training strategies.
In my interview with Professor Wood, she stated that she believes properly screened candidates, who receive dedicated low‑vision bioptic driver training and have appropriate licence conditions, can be safe drivers. She continues to support research in this field, including supervising the work of Dr Oberstein, whose research is discussed below. Professor Wood also serves on the supervisory panel for a major ongoing study due for completion around 2027:
Dr Sharon Oberstein has practised across South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Australia, bringing extensive international experience to her work in low‑vision care. Her PhD and research focus on central visual impairment and the use of Bioptic Telescopes, and she has published multiple peer‑reviewed papers in this field. Dr Oberstein is widely regarded as Australia’s leading expert in low‑vision assessments for bioptic driving.
She conducts student‑led bioptic assessment clinics most Tuesdays at the UNSW Optometry Clinic, where assessments are provided free of charge. People travel from across Australia to be evaluated, and—where appropriate—to proceed with the purchase of a bioptic device. Appointments can be made through the UNSW Optometry Clinic: optomclinic@unsw.edu.au.
In 2016 Dr Oberstein told me she believed I am a candidate for bioptic driving and there started my journey which you can read on my blog Australian Bioptic Driver.
People can also access comprehensive low‑vision assessments—including assessments for bioptic driving—through Dr Ursula White in Brisbane. Dr White has practised in Wales, New Zealand, and Australia, bringing broad international experience to her clinical work. Her PhD research focuses on the functional impact of vision loss in older adults, and she continues to apply this expertise in her low‑vision practice. Dr White provides detailed evaluations for individuals exploring bioptic driving suitability and contributes to the growing clinical capacity for bioptic assessment within Australia. https://www.specialeyesvision.com.au/
Regulation and Policy and Lobby Groups
 |
| front cover pages of Assessing Fitness to drive 2012, 2016 (revised 2017), 2022 |
2012 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
Bioptics (telescopic devices) were first formally discussed during the review process that led to the publication of the 2012 edition of the Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines (the previous edition was released in 2003).
10.2.7 Telescopic lenses (bioptic telescopes) and electronic aids
“These devices are becoming available in Australia. At present there is little information on the safety or otherwise of drivers using these devices. In particular, their use may reduce visual perception in the periphery. No standards are set but it is recommended that drivers who wish to use these devices be individually assessed by an ophthalmologist/optometrist with expertise in the use of these devices.”
The accompanying review report, released alongside the 2012 Guidelines, advised that the next review cycle would include the development of a dedicated bioptic driving standard within the Guidelines. This commitment acknowledged both the emerging availability of bioptic devices in Australia and the need for a structured, evidence‑based framework to guide assessment and licensing.
2016 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
Instead, the following wording appeared in the revised Guidelines:
10.2.7 Telescopic lenses (bioptic telescopes) and electronic aids
“These devices may improve acuity at the cost of visual field. They are not an acceptable aid to meet the standards.”
This statement is incorrect, not evidence‑based, and not supported by the scientific literature. The Bioptic Drivers Australia (BDA) FAQ explains in detail why this claim is factually wrong and clinically misleading.
Compounding this issue, the National Transport Commission (NTC) did not publish submissions from Professor Joanne Wood and Dr Sharon Oberstein, both of whom provided evidence demonstrating that the above statement was inaccurate (These are published on the BDA website). Based on the available correspondence, it appears that expert research was not given the same weight as the unevidenced views expressed by certain stakeholders, including some associated with RANZCO.
The review report further escalated the problem by asserting that practical driver assessments for vision‑impaired people were “inappropriate” and “dangerous.” This position is outside RANZCO’s scope of practice, yet their advice was treated as authoritative. In my view this reflects a pattern of medical gatekeeping within the Assessing Fitness to Drive (AFTD) Guidelines.
Meanwhile, Occupational Therapy Australia has repeatedly request clarity for supporting practical on‑road assessments for vision‑impaired drivers and for bioptics, yet these requests are overridden by 'medical' opinion - opinion that is not within this scope of practice. As the research clearly states, on‑road assessment is the only valid method for determining safe versus unsafe driving in cases where a person does not meet the unconditional 6/12 acuity standard. Also see 2006 paper by the International Council of Ohthalmogology VISUAL STANDARDS VISION REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVING SAFETY.
Role of Practical Driver Assessment (as stated in the review)
The review summarised its position as follows:
“Advising experts considered on‑road assessments to be inappropriate because they are unsafe and not effective in assessing ability to see emergency situations such as a child running onto the road between parked cars… It was not considered appropriate to grant a conditional licence based on evidence of safe driving practice (no accidents)… Practical tests would not be recognised… There were concerns regarding safety of personnel conducting practical tests with visually impaired drivers.”
These statements are deeply problematic. In my view, the language used here risks perpetuating stereotypes that vision‑impaired people are inherently dangerous, despite the absence of supporting evidence.
Formation of Bioptic Drivers Australia (BDA)
The events of this review directly contributed to the formation of Bioptic Drivers Australia (BDA) by four founding directors. The review report claimed that only “a handful” of bioptic drivers existed in Australia—an assertion that was incorrect. Many bioptic drivers had simply chosen to remain private to avoid public scrutiny and derogatory commentary, much of which stemmed from the language used by contributors to the AFTD Guidelines.
BDA’s advocacy brought these injustices to light. Their efforts were supported by Vision 2020 Australia, which engaged ministers to have the Guidelines reverted. The following excerpt is from Vision 2020’s email to the community on Monday 5 June 2017, summarising their discussion with the NTC:
The NTC thanked us and the telescopic driving community for raising concerns… Following receipt of the letter, the NTC reviewed the 2016 guidelines against the evidence and agreed that there had been an inadvertent change in language… An urgent recommendation has been put to the COAG Transport and Infrastructure Council to revert back to the 2012 wording… Jurisdictional licensing authorities have been asked to use the 2012 definition in the interim and to review any licences that may have been revoked as a result of the 2016 change… To the NTC’s knowledge, no licences have been lost due to the 2016 wording, but individuals who believe they were affected should request a review.”
Although the original Vision 2020 media release is no longer available on their website (as of April 2026), it remains accessible via Google search.
 |
| Google search of Vision2020 news article 'A win for drivers with central vision loss | Vision 2020 Australia' |
In 2017, stakeholders were advised that the decision to revert the wording was retrospective. This meant that any person who had been denied a licence or renewal due to the 2016 wording—from the release of the 2016 AFTD Guidelines until the ministerial decision on 1 August 2017—was entitled to return to their DLA and resubmit their application. Several individuals did so. None were granted a licence. Not a single applicant in NSW or Victoria has been approved to use a bioptic since.
Austroads did not update the AFTD Guidelines on its website to reflect the reverted wording for several years, despite BDA raising the issue repeatedly. During this period, a bioptic‑driver applicant appearing before a tribunal was confronted with senior counsel for the Driver Licensing Authority quoting the outdated wording. The tribunal accepted the DLA’s interpretation, which relied on wording that had since been superseded. This contributed to an outcome that, in my view, was unreasonable - where the applicant had to prove the DLA was using the wrong law.
BDA held Australia's first ever demonstration day at Wakefield Park, NSW which you can watch from this YouTube video:
In March 2020, BDA released the PwC report “Introducing an Australian Bioptic Driving Framework”.
 |
| Image of PwC Australian framework model - See BDA website at framework link above to read the detail |
BDA wrote to national, state, and territory ministers responsible for transport and disability portfolios seeking meetings. Public servants in both NSW and Victoria denied access to ministers. In correspondence dated 11 July 2021, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) advised:
“In early 2020, Mr Lee Cheetham, Manager of the Licence Review Unit at Transport for NSW, contacted you directly about the licensing of bioptic drivers in NSW. In response to your concerns, Transport for NSW sought an independent expert review encompassing available literature, crash data and case studies relating to bioptic drivers. On 7 April 2020, you were provided with the review findings. This review overwhelmingly concluded that bioptic telescopic drivers have a significant risk of a motor vehicle collision of an unacceptable magnitude. Transport for NSW has a statutory obligation to ensure the safety of all road users and cannot ignore the qualified professional advice.”
TfNSW further noted that the National Transport Commission (NTC) was examining feedback from the AFTD review and that NSW, along with other jurisdictions and peak medical bodies, was working with the NTC to finalise national licensing standards for all medical conditions, including bioptic driving.
In my view this “independent review” relied heavily on the same narrow set of opinions that had shaped the 2016 wording—opinions that were not supported by the broader scientific literature. See BDA website for detailed responses.
Example of DLA Reasoning
In cases where a person’s visual acuity was better than 6/24, some were issued conditional licences that explicitly prohibited the use of a bioptic. Every person who contacted their DLA was told that bioptic driving is illegal but the DLAs refused to put this in writing and kept saying each application is assessed on a case-by-case basis. BDA continued to advocate for individuals. In 2020, TfNSW reiterated this position:
 |
| TfNSW letter must not wear bioptic |
In 2021, another applicant received the following advice from Mr Lee Cheetham (TfNSW):
“PERSON can meet the requirements for acuity and visual fields tested separately, but not simultaneously, as is required when driving… there is little objective literature published by Austroads on the safety of these devices.”
This assertion—that acuity and field standards must be met simultaneously and that bioptic users inherently cannot do so—in my view, this assertion is not supported by the available evidence or bioptic driver practice. As explained in the BDA FAQs, this claim misunderstands both the purpose of bioptic telescopes and the way they are used in real‑world driving.
Identification of the Key Lobbyist Behind the Ban
Ongoing correspondence with DLAs revealed the source of the persistent opposition to bioptic driving. In an email, Mr Cheetham stated that BDA “knows who the expert is,” referring to Dr Paul Beaumont, whose reports for IMMEX (from 2016 onward) consistently advised that:
because a person is not looking through the bioptic at all times, they “cannot meet the vision standard,” and
bioptic use represents a “field loss” issue.
This framing has the effect of shifting visual acuity issues into the category of field‑loss conditions, which places greater emphasis on ophthalmological assessment. In my view, this has significant implications for how cases are managed. I also believe this approach has created a vision standard that is unnecessarily complicated on acuity and field which has the effect of consolidating control of the standard within ophthalmology. Whilst at the same time saying other clinical and functional assessment methods (along with on road tests) have no agreed measures and therefore cannot be added. Those other measures can be agreed and added for case-by-case assessment - it would be done by an optometrist, not ophthalmologist (See BDA FAQs for a recommended standard and tests). It would seem NTC, Austroads and DLAs continue to support the medicalisation of the AFTD guidelines where lobby groups such as RANZCO rationalise their opinion against road safety risk. Yet, the international literature, research and approaches show road safety can continue to be maintained even where ophthalmology is not the gatekeeper and trans/ multi-disciplinary approaches assess on a case-by-case basis for conditional driver licences. See my Churchill blogs.
Statements by Dr Paul Beaumont
In the attached advice, Dr Beaumont writes:
“I was the Chairman of the Clinical Standards Committee for RANZCO… I consulted with Mr Richard Grills… His expert opinion was that [bioptics] would not make a person with poor vision a safe driver and would be a distraction… I concluded BTS drivers had an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes.”
He further states:
“To allow subjects who have an increased risk of an at‑fault crash to have a licence, who will ultimately kill or maim another person, is unacceptable.”
In my view these statements are not supported by evidence as there are:
no known fatalities caused by bioptic drivers in Australia,
no evidence of such fatalities in the Netherlands or Canada, and
no contemporary research supporting the claim that bioptic drivers pose an “unacceptable” risk.
The research Dr Beaumont relies on is from the 1970s and early 1980s and has long been considered inappropriate for modern licensing decisions. Issues with these studies include the following which is even why the California driving authority who conducted the research does not act on the study and says the only way to appropriately study this group is through naturalistic driving methods:
- amalgamation error as cannot compare people with such large variations in vision acuity - it was not until the mid 1990s that California stopped lettering people who are legally blind to drive (their response to the studies was to add a minimum acuity of no less then 20/200, 6/60).
- amalgamation error as cannot compare people with such large variations in vision conditions - California has never had a field-testing requirement and Australia does. All formal bioptic driving programs have strict assessment criteria (see my other blogs).
- despite being gender and aged matched, bioptic drivers typically start driving for the first time later then general population and there is no way to know whether those identified as wearing the bioptic through DMV records were actually wearing them particularly given California continues to allow driving down to legally blind with "and" without a bioptic.
In my view, the basis for describing Mr Richard Grills as an expert in bioptic driving is unclear. This raises questions about the respective roles and expertise being relied upon in forming these assessments.
Conflict of Interest and Harmful Language
Dr Beaumont accuses Dr Sharon Oberstein of having a conflict of interest because she provides bioptic assessments:
“…who enhances their professional standing and benefits financially…”
Dr Oberstein runs student‑led clinics that provide no‑cost assessments. Suggesting that clinicians should not be paid for conducting medical fitness‑to‑drive assessments is absurd. By Dr Beaumont’s logic, every health professional paid for their services would have a conflict of interest—including himself.
He further accuses Dr Oberstein of “health fraud,” stating:
“…without an evidence base they are open to severe criticism… it could be seen as a health fraud.”
This could be seen as language that is harmful, and inconsistent with the evidence. It also ignores the evidence that bioptic assessment and training is a recognised low‑vision rehabilitation specialty worldwide.
Dr Beaumont’s reports do not reference any potential conflicts of interest, such as his roles within RANZCO and the Macular Disease Foundation Australia (which he founded in 2013).
Misuse of Risk Arguments
Dr Beaumont repeatedly argues that any increase in risk is unacceptable. By this logic:
young drivers (who have up to 20× higher crash rates)
drivers with medical conditions
older drivers
would all be unlicensable.
This is not how public policy works. As Professor Eli Peli (Harvard Medical School) has shown, vision tests alone cannot determine driving safety, and on‑road assessments are the only reliable method for evaluating real‑world performance.
International Evidence Ignored
The International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) 2006 report explicitly recommends:
comprehensive clinical functional assessment, and
on‑road testing where appropriate
for drivers who do not meet standard acuity thresholds.
This aligns with the work of Professor Eli Peli and decades of human‑factors research. In my view, some approaches within Australian ophthalmology place primary control over access to on‑road assessments within the medical domain.
Parallels with Orthoptics Australia (2020)
Dr Beaumont’s reasoning seems to mirror the Orthoptics Australia Position Statement (2020), which also contains:
no referenced research,
only assertions, and
similar misunderstandings of bioptic use.
BDA has formally responded to that statement on their website.
2022 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
For the most recent AFTD review, it appears that RANZCO, Transport for NSW (TfNSW), and VicRoads again attempted to have bioptics banned. BDA’s full submission to the review outlines these concerns in detail.
RANZCO privately submitted an extract of Dr Paul Beaumont’s earlier advice to TfNSW. As noted above, Dr Beaumont’s paper appears to rely on a selective subset of the available literature which has the practical effect of reinforcing a predetermined conclusion that bioptics are dangerous and should be prohibited. What is striking is that these arguments were made privately, while RANZCO simultaneously cultivated relationships with other organisations to encourage them to publicly promote the same position. These organisations trusted RANZCO to provide honest, factual, and impartial advice—yet to date RANZCO has not publicly released its objections to bioptics or Dr Beaumont’s paper.
An international expert who reviewed Dr Beaumont’s paper described it as showing “academic promise” but ultimately “naïve.” As noted in the California section of my Churchill Travels, Dr Hennessey—formerly of California’s research division (equivalent to Australia’s MUARC)—explained that the studies relied upon by Dr Beaumont suffer from amalgamation error and that DMV crash‑record data cannot be used to assess bioptic driver safety. Although RANZCO claims this is the “gold standard,” road‑safety policymakers understand that such data is only valid for certain populations—and bioptic drivers are not one of them. Using it in this context produces an inaccurate and misleading picture.
This raises a rhetorical questions: Could people question if RANZCO knows about the above amalgamation error and if it does what does that mean? And if it doesn't, what does that mean? And, whether there is any reputational risk?
RANZCO’s Lobbying of Other Organisations
During the review period, RANZCO actively consulted with and lobbied other peak bodies and professional groups to support the removal of bioptics from the AFTD Guidelines. BDA is aware that RANZCO and Dr Beaumont met with and wrote to:
Optometry Australia
Orthoptics Australia
Occupational Therapy Australia
State and federal transport and health ministers
The influence of this lobbying is evident in several submissions.
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2021)
“One of our members has advised… considerable concerns regarding the safety of these devices… ‘individual assessment’ is not sufficient… It is strongly recommended that it be stated: ‘These devices are not acceptable for commercial vehicle drivers.’ The further opinion of RANZCO should be sought.”
Australian and New Zealand Society of Occupational Medicine (2021)
“Discussions with RANZCO have raised considerable concerns… The device itself reduces visual field… ‘Individual assessment’ is not sufficient for commercial vehicle driving… These devices are not acceptable for commercial vehicle drivers.”
As a direct result of this lobbying, bioptics were prohibited for commercial driver licensing under the revised AFTD Guidelines.
A Fundamental Question
If “good vision is essential” and “vision is complex,” then why have the AFTD Guidelines and Driver Licensing Authorities not adopted a trans‑disciplinary, case‑by‑case assessment model, as they do for other medical conditions and, that is recommended by the ICO 2006 Vision Standards report?
Why is vision treated differently?
Why does the current system place primary decision‑making authority with ophthalmology, rather than adopting a trans‑disciplinary model as used for other conditions?
These are the questions that remain unanswered—and they go to the heart of why bioptic drivers in Australia continue to face systemic barriers that are not evidence‑based, not aligned with international best practice, and not consistent with principles of person‑centred rehabilitation.
Practical driver assessment - ongoing debate about professional roles
AFTD Committee Advice
The committee stated:
“Comment was received regarding the need to allow for practical driving assessment. This is now included in the standard, however the safety aspects are also highlighted, with recommendation for use of a simulator. It was not considered appropriate for granting of a conditional licence to be based on evidence of safe driving practice (no accidents).”
NTC Interim Report
The NTC’s interim report further noted:
“During the 2012 and 2016 reviews… advising experts considered on‑road assessments to be inappropriate because they are unsafe and not effective in assessing ability to see emergency situations… It was not considered appropriate to grant a conditional licence based on evidence of safe driving practice (no accidents)… A consensus position among medical experts could not be established… No changes have been made to this section.”
BDA’s Position: The Framing Is Incorrect and Misleading
BDA considers the above framing to be fundamentally flawed and in need of clarification—both within the standard and among stakeholders. The language used suggests that people with low vision seek a practical driving assessment in lieu of clinical eyesight testing. This is incorrect.
Internationally and in Australia, the intended model is:
Comprehensive clinical assessment, and
Where appropriate, an on‑road assessment to determine real‑world safety.
This is the same model used for many other medical conditions in the AFTD Guidelines. The misunderstanding that a practical test replaces clinical assessment has contributed to prejudicial assumptions about people with vision impairment.
Statements That Are Unfounded and Unsupported by Evidence
The following claims—repeated across multiple reviews—are not supported by evidence:
that on‑road assessments are “unsafe,”
that they are “not effective” for assessing emergency responses (not the purpose for any driver),
that practical tests cannot identify whether a person with low vision can drive safely,
that a conditional licence should not be granted based on evidence of safe driving practice.
There is no empirical basis for these assertions. They reflect opinion, not evidence.
However, in 2021 Dr Beaumont has gone on further to conclude: "It is likely a person wearing a low vision device is likely to be so embarrissed by the observcrs pointing and accusatory finger at them..." what kind of ophthalmologist says this about the group of people who pay him to delivery services? What other attitudes and words are being said in assessing fitness to drive forums about people with vision impairment?
The Harm of Deficit‑Based Medical Language
The continued use of this language by some ophthalmologists causes everyday harm to Australians with vision conditions. The way medical professionals speak about their patients matters. Deficit‑based language contributes to:
reduced access to services,
limited availability of vision rehabilitation,
exclusion from driver assessment pathways available to other medical groups,
and systemic barriers to independence, employment, and community participation.
Australia’s vision‑rehabilitation system is heavily focused on “preventable blindness” and those who meet the legal definition of blindness. People who fall outside these categories—including almost all potential bioptic drivers—receive little to no support and are often forced to self‑fund assessments, training, and equipment.
Driver Licence Authority (DLA) medical panels - ongoing debate about professional roles
The medical gatekeeping embedded in the AFTD Guidelines extends far beyond the wording of the standard itself. It is reflected in every state and territory through the absence of Occupational Therapy Driving Instructors (OTDIs) on so‑called “medical panels.” These panels should more accurately be called Fitness to Drive Panels, because the role of the OTDI is central to rehabilitation and falls outside the scope of ophthalmologists and optometrists. Yet OTDIs—who are the only professionals trained to assess functional driving performance—are routinely excluded.
NTC 2021 Interim Report: Medical Panels
The NTC noted:
“Stakeholders have requested that all driver licensing agencies establish medical panels… The use of medical panels is at the discretion of the driver licensing agencies.”
Medical Exams for Licensing and Renewal
The report also stated:
“Stakeholders requested the removal of medical examinations… including eyesight testing requirements… Each state and territory sets their own requirements.”
Exceptional Cases (AFTD Guidelines)
Section 10.2.9 states:
“In unusual circumstances, cases may be referred… for further medical specialist opinion.”
BDA’s Position on Panels and Expertise
BDA supports the use of medical and other specialists in assessing fitness to drive, including at entry to the licensing system, after critical incidents, and during periodic reviews. However:
All DLA panels must include a low‑vision optometrist and an OTDI, not only an ophthalmologist, when assessing people who do not meet the 6/12 acuity standard.
BDA has raised concerns that many medical panels lack expertise in low‑vision rehabilitation and bioptic use, resulting in decisions that are not evidence‑based.
Examples of Systemic Issues Raised by DLAs
In one jurisdiction, BDA was told:
“Every application for a bioptic driver licence will be refused.” (verbal)
Because of a past incident involving a heart‑condition case, the DLA now sends all medically‑related applications to the medical panel, regardless of relevance. (verbal)
Licences were issued with bioptic use explicitly prohibited, even when the applicant met criteria with the bioptic. (written)
Applications were refused based on a single 1980s California study showing a 1.9× collision rate—despite this study being discredited for amalgamation error. (written)
Applications were refused because bioptics “reduce peripheral field” or because the person “is not using it all the time.” (written)
Applications were refused because bioptics were “not a suitable device for driving,” even after BDA advised the DLA that the law had been reverted and they were applying the wrong standard. (written)
These issues have been concentrated in NSW and Victoria.
Other Jurisdictions Respond Differently
Some jurisdictions now avoid sending bioptic applications to their medical panels because they know the panel will reject them due to lack of expertise because the panel only has ophthalmology with no low vision optometrist or occupational therapy driving instructor expertise. Instead, they consider:
reports from Australian experts in bioptic use,
recommendations for conditional licensing, and
evidence‑based rehabilitation pathways.
BDA has had productive discussions with several DLAs who are open to evidence and willing to consider bioptic licensing on a case‑by‑case basis.
2022 AFTD Wording
The 2022 Guidelines state:
“The driver licensing authority may refuse a licence if the visual acuity standards are not met without the use of a bioptic telescope.”
This wording is deeply problematic. It contradicts the purpose of bioptics as an assistive technology designed to enable a person to meet the 6/12 standard. International practice and research—including the ICO 2006 report—make clear that:
the bioptic is used to meet the acuity requirement, and
the person’s unaided acuity must be better than 6/60, assessed clinically.
The 2022 wording misinterprets the device and undermines the very function of conditional licensing.
BDA’s Position
BDA’s submission to the review outlines how a clear, evidence‑based vision standard can be established for conditional licensing with a bioptic. This includes:
clinical assessment aligned with ICO 2006 Vision Standard,
functional assessment by an OTDI, and
case‑by‑case decision‑making consistent with international best practice.
In 2023, VicRoads responded to at least two complaints lodged with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC). In one case, a licence was refused because the applicant did not meet 6/24 acuity without the bioptic. In another, a conditional licence was issued but the applicant—who was a learner driver—was told they must not use the bioptic, as VicRoads claimed it did not know the impact of bioptic use for learners.
Despite VicRoads’ repeated statements that it assesses applications “on a case‑by‑case basis,” every application involving bioptics has been refused, and VicRoads has retrospectively cancelled licences where it became aware that a driver was using a bioptic.
In correspondence to VEOHRC in 2023, Serge Zandegu, Head of Driver Safety Standards, wrote:
“The Department confirms that currently, when making decisions about the use of bioptics, its approach is to assess the circumstances and application of the individual on a case‑by‑case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines.”
He further stated that:
until recently, VicRoads had adopted the National Medical Standards without a specific policy on bioptics
the 2022 AFTD update (section 10.2.8) prompted VicRoads to consider developing a Victorian‑specific policy
VicRoads would undertake an independent evidence review to determine the risks associated with bioptic use
the review would include a human factors analysis
the review was still being scoped, and no timeframe could be provided
Delays and Strategic Waiting
Several complaints from potential bioptic drivers were delayed by VicRoads. It became clear that VicRoads was waiting for the outcome of the 2022 AFTD review, which introduced new wording giving DLAs broad discretion to refuse bioptic use where:
the standard is “not met without the bioptic,” and
“there is insufficient information from human factors and safety research to set standards for bioptics.”
It is also notable that NTC staff responsible for the AFTD review are co‑located with VicRoads staff, raising questions about the degree of influence and alignment between the two agencies.
Engagement Between BDA and VicRoads
BDA has had ongoing correspondence with VicRoads. In July 2022, BDA met with senior VicRoads staff, including Jacqui Sampson and Serge Zandegu, who requested bioptic‑driving research and evidence—which BDA provided.
In September 2022, VicRoads confirmed in writing that they continued to enforce the 2016 AFTD Guidelines without the 2017 corrigendum, meaning they were knowingly applying outdated standards.
VicRoads then convened a meeting in October 2022 with three BDA board members (Belinda, Axel, and Jo). Attendees included:
Jacqui Sampson, Executive Director, Regulatory Programs and Services
Serge Zandegu, Head of Driver Safety Standards
Christopher, representing Louise Purcell, Manager Driver Road User Behaviour and Safety
Bettina Cruise, Director Partnership Policy and Programs (including AFTD policy)
Faye DeCosta, Manager Vehicle Safety and Partners
At this meeting, VicRoads stated that:
BDA and bioptic drivers would be involved in scoping the research
actual bioptic drivers would be included in the study
Neither commitment eventuated.
VicRoads’ 2025 Decision to Ban Bioptics
In December 2025, VicRoads sent BDA a letter stating that it had adopted a policy to ban bioptics for driver‑licence applications, based on the human‑factors research it had commissioned.
A review of the research revealed significant concerns:
No member of the research team had expertise in bioptic use
Instead of a low‑vision optometrist, the team included an orthoptist - did they choose Orthoptics Australia because they have a position statement opposing bioptic driving?
The “human factors walk‑through” of 19 environments did not demonstrate that actual bioptic drivers were used
No distinction was made between novice and experienced bioptic drivers
The research was preliminary, theoretical, and untested in real‑world settings
BDA has drafted a position paper responding to VicRoads’ decision. BDA considers that the research:
does not provide sufficient evidence to justify banning bioptics
does not reflect international practice
does not consider the decades of safe bioptic driving in Victoria
ignores the fact that no known fatalities or at‑fault crashes have been attributed to bioptic drivers in Victoria (Including BDA's founder who has been driving there to work and study in VIC periodically for the past three years both in Melbourne and regionally).
2026 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
In January 2026, BDA contacted the National Transport Commission (NTC) requesting a meeting to discuss bioptic driving. The Strategic Engagement Advisor responded that BDA would be included in their outreach program.
Two months later, in March 2026, the authors of the VicRoads‑commissioned paper published an article in mivision titled “A Closer Look: Bioptic Telescopes and Fitness to Drive.” mivision confirmed that the article was submitted by the Macular Disease Foundation Australia (MDFA) which was founded by Dr Beaumont.
Several statements in the article raise legitimate questions about evidentiary accuracy and the potential for misinterpretation. These concerns are important because they influence how people with low vision are perceived within licensing systems and they eye health community whom this publication is tartgeted.
The publication of the article in its current form also raises broader questions about editorial oversight and the processes used to ensure balanced, evidence‑based commentary.
Below is a summary of the key issues.
1. Framing Bias and Deficit Language
The article frames bioptic drivers as people who “still want, or feel they need, to drive,” implying emotional motivation rather than functional capability. This is misleading. Bioptics are an assistive technology used internationally to meet functional driving requirements—not a tool for wishful thinking.
2. Research Questions Designed to Presume Risk
The research questions appear rigorous but are structured to assume impairment, not investigate actual performance. Instead of asking whether trained bioptic drivers can meet functional driving requirements, the questions explore how bioptic use might impair performance. This is a risk‑presumptive, not neutral, approach.
3. Misuse of Human Factors Methodology
Although the authors claim to use a Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) framework to examine “real‑world driving,” the study:
involved no trained bioptic drivers,
included no on‑road driving,
used no validated bioptic training protocols, and
did not evaluate functional performance in context.
Human Factors analysis is designed to study human performance in real environments. Applying it without observing trained bioptic drivers is a methodological mismatch. The study therefore cannot meaningfully assess whether bioptic drivers can “act or react to the driving environment in a safe, consistent and timely manner,” as required by AFTD.
4. A “Systematic Review” That Is Not Systematic
A genuine systematic review requires:
transparent methodology,
predefined inclusion criteria,
quality appraisal, and
reproducibility.
None of these elements are disclosed. Instead, the authors mapped selected findings onto a taxonomy they created themselves, then used the resulting “gaps” to justify conclusions about risk. This is circular reasoning: the framework creates the gaps, and the gaps validate the framework.
5. Inappropriate Use of Cognitive Walkthroughs
The study uses “cognitive walkthroughs” to assess driving scenarios. Walkthroughs cannot substitute for:
on‑road assessment,
hazard‑perception testing, or
evaluation of trained bioptic scanning patterns.
Using them to infer safety outcomes is speculative at best.
6. A Taxonomy That Omits the Most Important Factor
The taxonomy includes broad system‑level factors—community attitudes, licensing costs, human rights—but omits the most relevant variable: the actual performance of trained bioptic drivers.
7. Misrepresentation of Cognitive and Attentional Limits
The article emphasises human information‑processing limits as if these constraints uniquely affect bioptic drivers. In reality, all drivers operate within the same cognitive and attentional limits. The study does not measure:
cognitive load,
attentional demand,
reaction time, or
hazard perception.
Yet it implies that bioptic use inherently increases risk. Without empirical data from trained bioptic drivers, such claims are unsupported.
8. Misleading Claims About “Gaps in Evidence”
The authors reviewed 62 peer‑reviewed studies spanning 50 years—a substantial body of international research. Rather than demonstrating a lack of evidence, this breadth reflects a long‑standing and evolving field.
The claim that methodological quality was “generally poor” is unsupported by:
transparent criteria,
quality‑appraisal tools, or
reproducible scoring.
Without these, the statement appears subjective and risks dismissing decades of legitimate research simply because it does not align with the authors’ preferred framework.
9. Misunderstanding the Nature of Bioptic Research
The critique that most bioptic research was conducted by vision scientists and clinicians is misplaced. Bioptic driving is a vision‑rehabilitation and assistive‑technology domain. It is entirely appropriate that the research base is led by:
low‑vision clinicians,
rehabilitation specialists, and
optometrists.
The absence of HFE‑specific studies does not indicate a lack of evidence; it simply reflects that no one has previously attempted to force bioptic research into an HFE taxonomy.
10. Misuse of UFOV and Other Visual‑Function Measures
The article criticises bioptic research for not including measures such as:
motion perception,
dynamic visual acuity,
contrast sensitivity,
glare sensitivity, and
UFOV.
These are recent additions to the driving‑vision literature and are not required under AFTD. UFOV, in particular, is a cognitive‑aging tool used primarily for dementia screening. It has not been validated for:
low‑vision drivers,
assistive‑technology users, or
bioptic populations.
Using UFOV to infer crash risk in bioptic drivers is unsupported.
The omission of U.S. low‑vision driver data—where thousands of bioptic drivers have decades of safe driving history—is a far more significant gap.
11. Unrealistic Expectations About Naturalistic Driving Studies
The authors claim that bioptic research has not examined varying road environments. Conducting such research would require a naturalistic driving study—the most expensive and logistically complex form of road‑safety research. These studies are rarely conducted for any disability group or assistive technology.
Yet internationally, naturalistic and on‑road studies have been conducted. Their omission significantly limits the validity of the article’s conclusions.
12. Misinterpretation of Self‑Regulation
The article suggests that bioptic drivers’ self‑reported avoidance of certain environments indicates increased risk. This is misleading. Self‑regulation is:
normal,
adaptive, and
explicitly recognised in AFTD as appropriate for conditional licence holders.
Avoidance behaviour is evidence of responsible driving, not impairment.
13. Misleading Use of “No Evidence of Enhanced Safety”
The statement that “no evidence was found that bioptic use is likely to maintain or enhance road safety” conflates:
the absence of Australian research with
the absence of global evidence.
It also implies that “no evidence of benefit” equals “evidence of risk.” This is a logical fallacy. If applied consistently, almost every conditional licence category in AFTD would be considered unsafe.
14. Internal Inconsistency in the Conclusion
The article claims the results were “very clear,” yet concludes that bioptic use “does not necessarily result in safer driving.” This is a hedged statement, not a definitive finding. In policy terms, “not necessarily” does not constitute evidence of harm.
The appropriate regulatory response to insufficient evidence is further research, not pre‑emptive restriction.
Has Australian research been misrepresented in this article?
The final line of the mivision article states:
“Such increases in risk were assessed as likely to outweigh any safety benefits gained from earlier reading of some traffic signs.”
It is unclear how the authors determined that these “assessed risks” were definitive or that they outweighed benefits. No empirical data is presented, and the statement appears to be a subjective judgement, not a measured outcome.
The suggestion that bioptics provide only “earlier reading of some traffic signs” is a misrepresentation of both the device’s purpose and the findings of Dr Sharon Oberstein’s PhD research (which the article itself refers to as “Australian research”). Dr Oberstein’s work demonstrates that:
the carrier lens monitors the present environment,
the bioptic provides a brief, targeted snapshot of the future environment,
this enables anticipation of speed‑limit changes, directional signage, and emerging hazards.
This anticipatory function is the core safety benefit of bioptic use. Reducing it to “earlier reading of some signs” is inaccurate and misleading.
The article’s commentary is written in a way that makes it reasonably possible for readers to identify Dr Oberstein, raising concerns about reputational harm.
What might a reasonable reader take away from this article?
A reasonable reader may interpret aspects of the article’s tone and structure in several ways. For example, they may perceive:
1 A strong narrative positioning bioptic driving as unsafe, presented without accompanying empirical evidence.
2 Comments that could be read as directed toward a specific researcher, even though she is not named, raising questions about how identifiable individuals may feel impacted.
3 A tone that may discourage clinicians from expressing alternative views, given the authoritative framing and the absence of balanced perspectives.
4 Rhetorical strategies that draw attention away from gaps in the evidence base, such as emphasising risk without presenting supporting data.
5 A style of commentary that may feel exclusionary or adversarial, particularly to readers with lived experience of disability.
BDA’s Response
BDA has contacted mivision to seek redress regarding the issues raised in the article. No response has been received to date.
For many readers, this silence may reinforce a broader pattern in which a small number of influential voices shape the public narrative, while perspectives from people with lived experience struggle to gain acknowledgment. The article’s framing also reflects deficit‑based language that has historically been used to justify exclusionary policy positions affecting people with low vision. As someone with lived experience, I recognise elements of this pattern from my own interactions with road safety and licensing systems, despite more than a decade of driving without any at‑fault accidents. These experiences shape how I interpret commentary that appears to marginalise affected communities or overlook their evidence and expertise.
A Premature National Ban: Will VicRoads’ Research Become an Australia‑Wide Policy?
In the meantime, it appears that VicRoads—through the research it commissioned—and the authors of that research have successfully influenced the NTC, Austroads, and several Driver Licensing Authorities (DLAs) to treat their summary report as sufficient grounds to effectively ban bioptic driving across Australia.
Queensland: “Bioptics Are Banned” or maybe not?
In August 2025, BDA was contacted by a mother whose sons had recently received conditional licences with the bioptic removed. When she asked the Queensland DLA why, she was told that bioptics were banned.
BDA followed up, and in September received this written response:
“Until the next edition of the AFTD standards is published, Austroads recommends that jurisdictions do not accept bioptic telescopes as a means of meeting the AFTD standards… The next edition is expected in 2027 and will include further information on bioptics.”
BDA then asked for the evidence supporting this decision and what arrangements were in place for current bioptic drivers in Queensland. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) replied:
“In Queensland, a driver’s treating doctor plays a central role… The AFTD Guidelines are developed by the NTC with advice from experts in the medical community… While bioptic lenses are not currently addressed in the AFTD, the development of a national standard is being considered… Until the outcomes of the AFTD review are known, TMR maintains its position that a person’s treating doctor is best qualified to determine fitness to drive.”
TMR then referred BDA to Austroads Project Manager, An Rendell.
Austroads: “We Are Aware of the Victorian Policy”
When BDA contacted An Rendell, the response came from Michael Nieuwesteeg, Program Manager – Road Safety & Design, Austroads:
“While Austroads is not responsible for developing the AFTD Standards, we believe the NTC will include a comprehensive review of the evidence… including bioptic lenses… We are aware of the Victorian policy flowing from the La Trobe University research… and concerns that the absence of a definitive standard has resulted in inconsistency across jurisdictions.”
He added:
“We look forward to this being resolved during the review.”
This response is notable for what it does not say:
Austroads does not challenge the Victorian ban.
Austroads does not identify any evidence supporting a national prohibition.
Austroads does not acknowledge the decades of safe bioptic driving in Australia.
Austroads does not address the immediate impact on existing bioptic drivers.
Does it signal that the VicRoads‑commissioned research—despite its methodological flaws—has become the de facto national position?
The Missing Piece: Austroads’ Closed Committees
Austroads holds multiple committee meetings every year to discuss assessing fitness to drive, medical conditions, and related policy matters. These committees:
are chaired by An Rendell,
operate with no public transparency,
do not disclose membership,
do not disclose how members are selected,
and provide direct access to national, state, and territory officials.
These committees are the mechanism through which narratives—such as “bioptics are unsafe” or “there is insufficient evidence”—can be circulated and normalised without public scrutiny.
As seen in RANZCO's private submission to the 2021 NTC review and noted below, has successfully lobbied for Orthoptics Australia to be added to these committees, despite:
orthoptists having no legal authority to provide fitness‑to‑drive assessments, and
their 2020 position statement opposing bioptic driving,
which strategically marginalises low‑vision optometry, the profession with actual expertise in low vision and bioptic assessment.
there appears to be no public‑interest rationale—economic, clinical, or workforce‑related—for sidelining low‑vision optometry in favour of orthoptists, or for expanding orthoptists’ authority to independently decide and submit reports to Driver Licensing Authorities (DLAs). Optometry has a broader scope of practice, established legal authority in fitness‑to‑drive assessments, and an oversupply of qualified professionals in the Australian workforce.
their inclusion in AFTD‑related processes raises questions about why this shift is occurring and who benefits from it.
This situation highlights deeper concerns about balance, expertise, and influence within the AFTD policy ecosystem. Australians deserve transparency about:
who sits on Austroads and AFTD advisory committees,
how members are selected,
what expertise they bring,
whether decisions are being shaped by evidence or by the preferences of the most influential lobbyists, and
who suggested and agreed to what changes in the AFTD Guidelines.
The current lack of transparency is not a technical issue—it has real‑world consequences. When committees are shaped by influence rather than expertise, the result is policy that restricts access to the driving privilege, undermines rehabilitation pathways, and disproportionately harms ALL Australians.
BDA is a not for profit private company. Occasionally BDA may receive pro bono donations for pieces of work. All advocacy and social media is done by volunteers who are not paid for their time. If you would like to support BDA’s advocacy efforts, you can contact us at: biopticdriversaus@gmail.com (yet all people and organisation opposing bioptic driving in Australia are being paid for work, including the LaTrobe report that was commissioned by VicRoads and therefore paid for by VIC tax payers).
My 10‑Year Advocacy Story
Bioptic driving changed my life. It reshaped my identity, my independence, and my sense of what was possible. For someone born vision‑impaired, repeatedly told what I couldn’t do, bioptic driving opened a door I had been taught was permanently closed.
My personal journey is documented on my blog: https://australianbiopticdriver.blogspot.com/ That space is where I write about my lived experience—not about my work with BDA, but about the deeply personal parts of navigating disability, identity, and autonomy.
When the 2016 AFTD Guidelines Removed Bioptics
When the 2016 AFTD Guidelines removed bioptics, it meant I could no longer even apply for a provisional licence to see whether I could drive safely. It was another moment—one of many in my life as a disabled person—where a system refused to see me. Refused to see us.
It was “othering” in its purest form.
For years, before BDA existed, I wrote quietly and privately. I celebrated my wins behind closed doors with a small, trusted support network. I had seen the vitriol directed at people who dared to challenge misconceptions about low‑vision bioptic driving. I knew what it felt like to be judged before being known.
Anyone from a marginalised group will recognise this pattern: the unconscious bias, the deficit language, the shaming culture.
My fear was never that I would be unsafe. I always believed I could drive with the right supports. My fear was the familiar one: that disabled people are treated as undeserving—that our existence is somehow lesser, and that when decisions are made, we are the first to be sacrificed for the convenience of others. We are seeing this now with the NDIS framing.
I learned this through education, through employment, and through countless small moments. One that stays with me is being told by a head of HR: “You’re a trailblazer for being employed.” As if my mere presence was the achievement—and no further effort was required from anyone else.
Choosing to Live My Dreams Anyway
Over time, my mindset shifted. I realised that whether I did nothing or everything, stigma would still judge me. So I chose to live my dreams—knowing it came with personal risk, but also knowing that silence would cost me far more.
Over the past decade, I have delivered countless presentations about my bioptic‑driving journey and about disability more broadly. Most experiences have been positive. But a few stand out—moments that reflect the same vitriol, the same deficit‑based assumptions, the same resistance to seeing disabled people as capable, autonomous adults.
Those moments fuelled my advocacy. They reminded me why BDA needed to exist. And they reinforced the truth that systems do not change on their own—people change them.
2019 National Assistive Technology Conference
In 2019, I travelled to Melbourne to speak at the National Assistive Technology Conference. I was invited as a main speaker to share my bioptic‑driving journey and the early work of BDA. I felt energised, welcomed, and genuinely seen—until the moment I accepted a question from the audience.
The “question” came from someone I later learned was Dr Marilyn Di Stefano—a Churchill Fellow, senior VicRoads Road‑safety specialist, occupational therapist, human‑factors researcher, (and co‑author of several papers with Dr Pam Ross who is one of the authors of the La Trobe bioptic‑driving paper, also a Churchill Fellow). Her comment was not really a question at all. She asked:
“Don’t those car modifications need to be approved by your driver licensing authority?”
The implication was clear: that I was doing something wrong.
I answered correctly—no, a heads‑up display, Hercules half‑moon mirrors, a dashcam, and aftermarket parking sensors do not require DLA approval. But the damage was done. Given her status and authority, the room shifted. The inference hung in the air. I was rushed off stage and quietly uninvited from the post‑conference dinner.
I had done nothing wrong, yet I walked away feeling shamed.
Since then, I have had multiple email exchanges with Dr Di Stefano regarding licence applications for several people seeking to drive with bioptics. Every application was refused.
The following day - a public dismissal - the keynote speaker was Lloyd Walker, Director of Assistive Technology & Home Modification Market Policy and Innovation at the NDIA. His final slide showed an elderly man with white hair, dark glasses, and a cane standing at the open door of a car. He spoke about a blind person requesting NDIS funding for a semi‑autonomous vehicle and why it was not “reasonable and necessary.”
During questions, I raised my hand repeatedly. I moved around to be seen. He ignored me.
After the session, three attendees approached me to say they had noticed what happened and wanted to hear what I had tried to ask. I approached Lloyd and explained bioptic driving. He responded:
“It’s illegal. And no, the NDIS will not pay.”
He turned away.
I interjected—calmly—to explain that I had been a bioptic driver for three years and that bioptic driving had existed in Australia since the 1980s. He looked genuinely shocked. We exchanged cards, but the promised follow‑up never occurred.
Ironically, I am aware of several people—mostly with albinism—who have had their bioptics funded through the NDIS. A disability‑sector exhibitor later approached me to offer gentle reassurance about “values” and “respectful conversations.” The implication was clear: he had seen what happened too.
What These Moments Revealed - These events made me wonder who was shaping the narrative in Victoria—because it was obvious that bioptic driving was being framed as illegal long before I ever entered the conversation. My presence simply disrupted that narrative.
And yes—I am proud of that.
For my own wellbeing, I debriefed with the BDA Board and with colleagues from the Disability Leadership Institute. Their support helped me process what had happened and recognise the broader pattern:
marginalisation disguised as “professional concern,”
public dismissal of disabled expertise,
gatekeeping justified by selective interpretations of “safety,”
and a long‑standing effort to silence or discredit anyone who challenges the status quo.
These experiences did not deter me. They clarified the work ahead.
A Media “Debate” That Was Never About Balance
In 2020, I was invited to be interviewed by one of the Radio Print Handicap (RPH) networks. The interview was arranged by Matthew Layton, Executive Producer. I introduced him to one of our bioptic drivers, whom he interviewed in person.
However, when it came to interviewing me, he insisted it could only occur as a panel debate with Dr Paul Beaumont—as if the only way to hear from a bioptic driver was to place them opposite an ophthalmologist for public scrutiny. Matthew told me he had already contacted Dr Beaumont’s office and secured his agreement.
I refused. It is inappropriate—and fundamentally unequal—to pitch a bioptic driver against a medical specialist in a manufactured “debate” about their right to exist on the road. It reinforces the idea that disabled people must constantly defend their legitimacy, while those in positions of authority are framed as the arbiters of truth.
Because I declined the panel format, Matthew published the story without any input from BDA.
At the end of the podcast, he remarked that he was sure “more will be said about bioptic driving and all sides of the story.” The implication was clear: our voice was optional, but the medical gatekeeping voice was essential.
This moment was another example of how narratives about bioptic driving are shaped—not by evidence, not by lived experience, but by who is granted the microphone.
When Professional Gatekeeping Becomes Personal
During my Orientation and Mobility (O&M) training (2022–2025), I interacted with many orthoptists. Almost every time I disclosed that I was vision‑impaired and a bioptic driver, the reaction was the same: surprise, disbelief, and in some cases, outright shock.
Across multiple placements and interactions, I repeatedly encountered the same indirect message—never stated plainly, but always implied:
“Anyone with acuity below 6/12 cannot drive and must be reported to the DLA.”
These conversations were uncomfortable, not because I doubted my own capability, but because the assumptions were so deeply ingrained. A few orthoptists were open‑minded and curious. Many were not. And I was not the only one experiencing this.
A close friend of mine—also vision‑impaired and working as a health assessor—shared that her manager received a phone call from the lead orthoptist in her area. The orthoptist warned the manager about their “limitations” and claimed their “deficits” posed a risk to client care.
It was an upsetting experience, but her manager—who also had a disability—immediately recognised the bias and affirmed her competence. The manager knew they had strategies in place, and that disability does not equate to incapacity.
These experiences raise serious questions about whether orthoptists receive adequate training in:
human rights,
disability discrimination,
reasonable adjustments, and
the lived experience of vision‑impaired people.
They also highlight a broader cultural issue: when professionals hold unchecked assumptions about what disabled people can’t do, those assumptions become embedded in systems, policies, and licensing decisions. And people like us pay the price. Unfortunately, I have told stories of other vision impaired people in medical and health education and training being refused practical placements, refused adjustments and pushed out of PhD opportunities - it seems the medical and health sector in Australia may have issue with seeing those they serve as clients being colleagues.
An Invitation Deferred: When Health Interrupted My Advocacy
In 2024, I was honoured to be invited by the Australian Society of Ophthalmology (ASO) to deliver a keynote address at their national conference in Sydney. They asked me to present the findings of my Churchill Fellowship—a rare opportunity to speak directly to Australia’s ophthalmology community about bioptic driving, international best practice, and the future of low‑vision rehabilitation.
At the time, I was still completing my Fellowship report and working steadily toward the deadline. But by May, a chronic health condition that had been gradually worsening reached a point where I could no longer work. I was devastated to withdraw. I knew my absence meant that critical information about bioptic driving—information that could have shifted understanding within the ophthalmology sector—would not be heard. And I know ASO were disappointed too.
My rehabilitation and recovery have been slow but steady. As my health improves, I am finalising my blogs and preparing to complete the Fellowship report. I hope that ASO will invite me again, because the conversation is overdue, and the ophthalmology community deserves access to accurate, evidence‑based information about bioptic driving.
And Australians with low vision deserve nothing less.
When “Humour” Becomes Targeting: A Public Presentation Gone Wrong
In late 2024, I accepted an invitation to present the findings of my Churchill Fellowship at the NSW Driver Trainer Association (DTA) conference. The presentation went well, and during morning tea a TfNSW employee approached me to say he was vision‑impaired and had never heard of bioptic driving. We exchanged information, and the conversation was warm and genuine.
A session after mine was a presentation on the online Driver Knowledge Test (DKT) system, delivered by Katie Davis‑Hall‑Watson, Senior Manager, Licence and Registration Products at TfNSW.
During her talk, she referred to me several times in a joking tone:
“…and this has been adapted so even vision‑impaired people like you, Belinda, will be able to see it…”
This was not friendly banter. We had never met. She had not spoken to me before the session or during morning tea.
The room shifted. People looked uncomfortable. I felt targeted and singled out—not as a professional, not as a presenter, but as “the vision‑impaired person in the room.”
Sometimes colleagues tease each other when there is rapport. But there was no rapport here. There was only a senior official using my disability as a punchline in a professional forum.
To their credit, the NSW DTA chose not to publish her presentation online, even though they published all the others. That decision speaks for itself.
This moment was yet another reminder of how easily disabled people can be reduced to stereotypes—even in spaces where we are invited as experts, leaders, and contributors.
When does “Conflict of Interest” Become a Tool of Exclusion?
Before leaving the Australian Public Service, I worked in the Office of Future Transport Technology, focusing on research and policy for connected and automated vehicles (CAVs). It was work I cared deeply about—ensuring emerging technologies would be accessible, equitable, and designed for all Australians, including disabled people.
When the section changed Directors, the attitude toward my presence shifted. I was told that being a founder and director of BDA created a conflict of interest that prevented me from working in the CAV space. This was despite the obvious fact that bioptics have nothing to do with automated‑vehicle policy.
The real issue was not conflict of interest. It was that I continued to raise concerns about disability access, consultation processes, and the risk of designing CAV systems that excluded disabled people. And because I am disabled, my contributions were reframed as “bias.”
In a conversation with a colleague, I asked a simple question:
“If CAVs are designed only for non‑disabled people, and you are not disabled, is that not also a bias?”
There was no answer. I no longer work there.
A Disturbing Moment Inside Government
While still in that division, I attended a meeting where a senior executive congratulated staff for a successful road‑safety campaign. The strategy?
Using case studies involving ministers’ own family members to “turn their heads,” because, as the executive put it:
“The evidence by itself wasn’t shifting their attention.”
The examples referenced “impaired drivers” and other scenarios that directly relate to people who undergo fitness‑to‑drive assessments.
As a public servant, I found this deeply inappropriate.
Policy should be shaped by evidence, not emotional manipulation—especially when the narratives used can stigmatise disabled people and those with medical conditions.
Yet, given everything I had witnessed, it was hardly surprising.
When Service Providers Decide What Disabled People “Should” Want
In late 2025, I met with Trudy Smith, Manager of Continuing Education and Sue Silveira (Board Member for Orhtoptist Australia) Orthoptist at NextSense to discuss the possibility of NextSense developing an online training module for Orientation & Mobility (O&M) specialists. The goal was simple and evidence‑based: to teach pre‑driver skills—the same foundational skills documented in the LiveBinders resources created by Chris Tabb, COMS, with whom I co‑presented at the OMAA (Orientation and Mobility Association of Australiasa) Conference in 2022.
During our discussion, I raised the systemic issues I had encountered from certain ophthalmologists. To my surprise, Trudy responded:
“Well, if ophthalmologists don’t want it, then we won’t be doing it.”
The message was unmistakable: the preferences of a medical group—one with no role in O&M practice—would determine whether disabled people could access a skill‑building program.
I pushed back, referencing misinformation, gatekeeping, and the strong interest shown at OMAA. But the conversation went nowhere.
What was interesting from that meeting is conversation between Sue and Trudy where Sue (an orthoptist) advised that RANZCO 'finally' gave a concession for Orthoptist Australia by allowing Meri Vukicevic (who I later learned is co-author of the above LaTrobe report), to sit with them on the Austroads vision standard committee and that this was at least something for them given 'everything' OA do for them.
The Deeper Issue: Who Controls Disability Services?
This exchange revealed a broader structural problem: non‑disabled professionals controlling disability service organisations and deciding what is “appropriate” for disabled people based on their own risk values—not on evidence, need, or lived experience.
Although individualised funding models (like the NDIS) have shifted power toward disabled people, many service providers still operate with a block‑funding mindset, where organisational comfort outweighs client autonomy.
This is especially visible in the vision‑services sector:
Most providers focus almost exclusively on people who are legally blind,
They rarely serve people with moderate vision impairment (low vision),
And they overwhelmingly employ orthoptists, not low‑vision optometrists,
Meaning they lack the professional expertise most relevant to bioptic driving and pre‑driver skill development.
The result? A service landscape shaped by the assumptions of abled professionals rather than the goals of the people receiving support.
Why Pre‑Driver Skills Matter
Pre‑driver skills are not just for future bioptic drivers. They benefit:
people who may use active transport,
people transitioning away from driving,
young people learning road‑awareness,
and anyone building confidence in complex environments.
These skills expand independence. They expand choice. They expand safety.
And they should be driven—literally and figuratively—by the needs of disabled people, not by the comfort of service providers or the preferences of unrelated medical groups.
Summary: The Systemic Barriers Holding Back Bioptic Driving in Australia
 |
| image of who influences the AFTD guidelines in Australia and pressure points |
- Power imbalances within the eye‑health sector, where low‑vision optometry often sits in the shadow of larger or more influential professional groups, despite its broader scope of practice and workforce capacity.
- Policy influence shaped more by institutional relationships and professional status than by data or lived experience, leading to decisions that do not reflect contemporary evidence.
- A professional environment where some clinicians may feel discouraged from expressing alternative views, due to strong normative positions within parts of the sector.
- Deficit‑based narratives about people with vision impairment, framing us as inherently risky rather than capable with appropriate supports.
- Messaging that emphasises risk in ways that may be interpreted as fear‑based, particularly when not accompanied by empirical evidence.
- Limited understanding of low‑vision driving within the Occupational Therapy Driving Instructor community, leaving a critical part of the assessment pathway under‑prepared.
- Organisational hesitancy to engage with bioptic driving, sometimes due to concerns about professional scrutiny or sector expectations.
- The “missing middle” — people who do not qualify for the NDIS and cannot access driver‑licensing supports — leaving many without a pathway to independence.
My next blog post will be the final instalment in this Churchill Fellowship series, focusing on the success factors and barriers identified across international jurisdictions—and what Australia must do to move forward.
To learn about the reasons for this blog, go to my Churchill Trust Australia webpage to read about the fellowship I was awarded being "The NRMA - ACT Road Safety Trust Churchill Fellowship to identify success factors and barriers for low vision and telescopic glasses driving" The page is here: https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/fellow/belinda-oconnor-act-2022/
Comments
Post a Comment