18. Australian bioptic driving history and current status
Bioptic Drivers Australia (BDA) continues to raise awareness and educate the public that low vision bioptic driving in Australia is an option. That low vision and bioptic drivers who have been carefully selected and go through dedicated training programs (bioptic on-foot and passenger in car) can be safe drivers. Visit the BDA website for current news, awareness and education.
Bioptic driving practice in Australia
 |
| picture of Dr Alan Johnston source: Eyes on Southtgate website |
Emeritus Professor Bailey - began his optometric career in 1967 in Australia working at the University of Melbourne and then the National Vision Research Institute (NVRI) and since 1976 moved to the USA. Professor Bailey and Jan Lovie did the foundational work at the NVRI in Australia in the 1970s developing the "logMAR" design principles for visual acuity charts and introducing the methods of scoping visual acuity as logMAR. These charts are the now the standard for eye care and clinical research in Australia and globally. It is the measure used in the Australian Fitness to Drive Guidelines. Professor Bailey for decades has contributed to practice, research and authored papers on bioptics for driving.
Dr Johnston was Australia's international contact for the International Bioptic Driving Network that ceased around 2015. Internet searches found an Australia telecoptic driving social networking text forum where current drivers at the time from the 1980s through to early 2000s shared stories.
 |
| picture of Professor Joanne Wood source: QUT website |
Professor Joanne Wood School of Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q) is a world leading researcher in functional vision and 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 research she conducted in the USA with other leading experts in vision vision (Eligin, McGwin, Owsley) showing. The research compared driving skills of five trainee bioptic drivers with licensed experienced bioptic drivers. The results found "while sign recognition, lane keeping, steering steadiness, gap judgments and speed choices were significantly worse in trainees, some driving behaviors and skills, including pedestrian detection and traffic light recognition were not significantly different to those of the licensed drivers." She concluded this gave insights to training strategies.
In interview with Professor Wood, she told me she believes properly screened candidates who received dedicated training for low vision bioptic driving and appropriate conditions on their licence, can be safe drivers. Professor Wood continues support of research in this field as supervisor for the below research conducted by Dr Oberstein. She is also a member of the supervisory panel on current research due to be completed around 2027 'Public health impact of driving participation for young adults who use bioptics for driving: safety, value, and policy'.
Dr Sharon Oberstein practice includes in South Africa, United Kingdom and Australia. Her PhD and research area is central visual impairment and Bioptic Telescopes. She has published several papers in this area. Dr Oberstein is Australia's expert for low vision assessments for bioptic driving conducting student led clinics for free most Tuesdays. People travel from all over Australia to be assessed and if appropriate, purchase the bioptic. Bookings can be made through the UNSW Optometry Clinic: optomclinic@unsw.edu.au. In 2016 Dr Oberstein told me she believed I am candidate for bioptic driving and there started me journey which you can read on my blog Australian Bioptic Driver.
People can also receive comprehensive low vision assessments including for bioptic driving by Dr Ursula White in Brisbane. Dr White has practiced in Wales, New Zealand and Australia with her PhD focus on the functional impact of vision loss of older adults. 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) was first discussed in the review leading to the publication of the 2012 edition of the Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines (the edition prior was 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 review report released at the same time as the Guidelines advised the next review will develop a standard within the Guidelines for bioptic driving.
2016 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
Instead this happened:
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 fact and not evidence based. See the FAQ on the BDA website that explains why.
In addition, the National Transport Commission refused to publish submissions given by Professor Joanne Wood and Dr Sharon Oberstein that gives evidence why the above statement is incorrect. As can be seen below, NTC, Austroads and DLA continue to ignore expert research in favour of lobbyist views by favoured people particularly RANZCO.
Further demonising vision impaired people the review report continued to claim practical driver assessments for vision impaired people who meet case by case assessment of clinical vision standards is inappropriate and dangerous. NTC and Austroads continue to use RANZCO as 'advising experts' yet the matter of practical driver assessment is outside their scope of practice. This continues the medical gatekeeping of the AFTD guidelines. Occupational Therapy Australia has continued to provide submissions to request practice driving assessments of visiion impaired drivers but continues to be ignored. As noted below, research states this is the only way to be able to assess safe from unsafe drivers when assessing on a case by case basis for drivers who do not meet the 6/12 unconditional drivers licence.
Role of practical driver assessment
During the previous review, a comment was received regarding the need to allow for practical driving assessment. 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). This matter was discussed by the Advisory Committee and it was determined that the proper application of the standards was sufficient and that practical tests would not be recognised. There were concerns regarding safety of personnel conducting practical tests with visually impaired drivers.
The above matter is address in BDA's 2021 submission to the NTC review of the AFTD guidelines. It is disturbing to read the defamatory statements here against vision impaired people saying they are a risk to the safety of personnel conducting practical tests.
What happened at this review is why Bioptic Drivers Australia (BDA) way formed by four board directors. The review report noted only a handful of bioptic drivers existed. They were wrong. Bioptic drivers have since felt the need to continue their journey to avoid public scrutiny and derogatory slurs that have been the result of such language being used by contributors to the AFTD Guidelines. BDA led advocacy to bring to light this injustice. These efforts were supported by the lobby group Vision2020 Australia who engaged ministers to have the Guidelines reverted. Here is the media release and pasted here is the email sent from Vision2020 on Monday 5 June 2017:
I hope this email finds you well! I have some good news - we received a call from the National Transport Commission (NTC) this morning regarding the letter we sent in March. It turns out that the NTC are the appropriate body to respond to our concerns, and our letter had been referred over from AustRoads, hence the delay. A short summary of my discussion with the NTC is as follows:
- The NTC representative thanked us and the telescopic driving community for raising concerns and mentioned that with the complex nature of the review; the NTC relies on organisations and individuals to help them determine where there are gaps.
- 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
- As a result, an urgent recommendation has been put to the Council of Australian Governments’ Transport and Infrastructure Council (COAG TIC) (Ministerial reps from all states and territories) to revert back to the 2012 wording. This will be voted on out of session over the coming weeks, and no concerns have been raised to date – it is expected to pass without issue.
- In the interim, the NTC has written to all jurisdictional licencing authorities to ask them to use the 2012 definition until the decision from the COAG TIC is passed down. The licencing authorities were also asked to review any licences that may have been revoked for this reason since the guidelines were published in 2016. No concerns around this have been raised by any of the jurisdictional licencing authorities.
- We were assured that to the NTC’s knowledge, no individuals have lost their licence as a result of the 2016 change; however encouraged us to circulate to the community that anyone who has lost a licence and feels the 2016 guidelines impacted the decision should visit their local licencing authority and request a review.
Please note that a final decision is still to be made, however the NTC representative took our direct details and committed to let us know when they can. If we have not heard back in the next few weeks, we will follow up directly.
This news article can no longer be found on the Vision2020 website as of April 2026 but can still be seen by a google search:
Austraods did not update the AFTD Guidelines on their website to include the reverted wording until several years later, despite BDA raising this with them several times. A biopic driver applicant at tribunal on appear was faced by DLA senior counsel quoting the old wording to the judge who believed the DLA senior lawyer even through he was quoting a defunct provision. This created an unreasonable adverse event towards the potential bioptic driver. The matter was eventually settled out of court.
In March 2020 BDA released the PwC report 'Introducing an Australian Bioptic Driving Framework' and wrote to Transport and Disability national, state and territory ministers to meet and discuss. Both NSW and VIC public servants denied us access to ministers. In a letter from TfNSW dated 11 July 2021 Terry McSweeney as Ministerial department contact wrote:
I am advised that 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 and that 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 that all licence holders are medically fit and competent to drive and cannot ignore the qualified professional advice.
As you may be aware, the National Transport Commission is currently in the process of examining feedback from the recent consultation round of the Assessing Fitness to Drive review and update. Transport for NSW, in conjunction with other states and territories and peak medical bodies, is working with the Commission to finalise a national solution and licensing standards for all medical conditions relevant to driving, including for bioptic telescopic drivers.
In 2017 stakeholders were advised that the decision to revert this wording was retrospective. Meaning any applicant for a drivers licence or licence renewal who were denied a licence for this reason from the time of the release of the 2016 AFTD guidelines to the decision date by Ministers (1 August 2017) are to go back to their DLA to resubmit their application. Several people took up this option and all have been denied - not one person who has applied in NSW or VIC have been granted a licence to use biopics since.
Where the person's acuity is better then 6/24 the letter in some cases grants a conditional driver licence and explicitly cites the person is prohibited from using the bioptic. Every person who contacted the DLA was told that bioptic driving is illegal. BDA continued to advocate for individuals. from TfNSW in 2020:
For another person advice from Mr Cheetham in 2021:
Your licence was refused under the provisions of Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2017, Clause 56(1)(e). The advice from the medical advisors on your case was as follows:·
Best corrected vision with contact lens is 6/30 right eye, 6/38-1 left eye, binocular 6/30.
• With bioptic telescopic spectacles, binocular vision improves to 6/7.6+1.
• When not looking through the bioptic spectacles, PERSON has a normal Esterman test. (There is no
central field defect and horizontal extent of the visual field is 144 degrees.)
• However, when using the telescope acuity is better but the field of view is reduced. Without the telescope, field of view is adequate, but acuity is poor, i.e. PERSON can meet the requirements for acuity and visual fields tested separately, but not simultaneously, as is required when driving.
As discussed with you on the telephone, there is little objective literature published by Austroads on the safety of these devices with driving.
This 'medical advisors' assertion that the the acuity and field standard cannot be met concurrently is factually incorrect and has no evidence. See BDA website FAQs. Further, TfNSW continued to ignore the BDA PwC report that provided evidence of 50 years of research, facts and evidence of the safety of low vision and bioptic driving.
Ongoing correspondence with DLAs revealed who has been behind the charge to ban bioptic driving in Australia. Attached here is an email from Mr Cheetham where you can read the full advice. Mr Cheetham said that he knows we know who the expert is and we know this due to responding to reports written by Dr Paul Beaumont since 2016 about bioptic drivers. In those reports from 2017 and beyond which were from IMMEX and signed by Dr Paul Beamount he would consistently advise that because the person is not looking through the bioptic all the time they cannot meet the vision standard. He would also state the issues was a 'field loss' issue - this is signifiant to note here as I note later it is RANZCO's redrafting of the AFTD from 2021 that tries to make vision acuity a field loss condition which appears to be a gatekeeping action over proper application to allow occupational driver therapy assessment for vision conditions. Dr Beaumont continues to ignore that the bioptic is an assistive technology advice and its use is designed purposefully.
From this advice it was very concerning to read:
I was the Chairman of the Clinical Standards committee for the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists (RANZCO) and in that role assisted the RMS in drawing up the 2016 NTC Assessing Fitness to Drive guidelines. In dealing with Bioptic Telescopic Spectacles I consulted with Mr Richard Grills and expert in vision rehabilitation and the prescription of telescopic spectacles. His expert opinion was that they would not make a person with poor vision a safe driver and in fact they would be a distraction. In preparing my advice to the NTC re changing the guidelines I examined the literature and concluded BTS drivers had an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes(MVC).
I have subsequently been an invited speaker at the RANZCO National Scientific Meeting and the Optometry meeting. I have had a meeting with then Glaucoma Society executive, updating them on the 2016 NTC Assessing Fitness to Drive guidelines and discussed the evidence base for field loss which affects many patients with Glaucoma. I have provided expert reports for the RMS in NSW on over 200 disputed cases. I am currently chairman of the RANZCO working group examining the principles that underly the setting of driving guidelines.
The NTC had agreed to change the guideline as requested. This was unfortunate as it clearly was raising the hopes of members of the public and could lead to litigation that was costly to the person involved and to the RMS, or even worse, could possibly lead to subjects with a high risk of causing fatal accidents being given a licence.
There is no evidence of low vision bioptic drivers in Australia who have been driving since the 1980s of any fatalities. Nor any evidence of such in The Netherlands or Canada. The evidence to which Dr Beaumont refers is research conducted in the 1980s and early 1980s that has since been deems inappropriate to rely on for decisions on determining the safety of low vision bioptic drivers. This is documented in my California blog. There is no evidence that Mr Grills is an expert in bioptics for driving despite the claim. It is also notable Dr Beaumont talks to expertise in Glaucoma yet this eye condition prevents a person from becoming a bioptic driver which questions why he would include this statement if he has knowledge of this subject matter. It is concerning to BDA that as a prominent lobbyist he appears to demonise potential low vision drivers and playing on road safety fears and potential litigation for DLAs. This is deficit language and without consideration of a trans/ multi-discinplinary model that supports rehabilitation that is available to other medical conditions in the AFTD guidelines but not for the eyesight conditions. Such an approach seems to highlight medical gatekeeping by RANZCO which is particularly evidence given the field of bioptic eye assessments is solely the domain of low vision optometry.
He goes to lobby as to why he believes an expert in the use of bioptics has a conflict of interest yet does not disclose his own conflict of interest in lobbying for funding to support actities for RANZCO and the Macular Disease Foundation (MDF) that he founded in 2013. In the attached advice he appears to use colourful language that leads one to consider that he may be personally invested that the 2017 removal of bioptics from the standard was against his wishes with an enduring mission to have bioptics removed.
Dr Oberstein, like many university clinics, run student led clinics that provide a no cost to the person being assessed. Yet Dr Beaumont accuses Dr Oberstein of '...who enhances their professional standing and benefits financially...' and thus having a conflict of interest. Such a premise is ridiculous given it is the role of the eye health professional to do the eye assessment for medical fitness to drive and to be paid for that service. Is Dr Beaumont suggesting all low vision bioptic drivers are to be given 'free' health care assessments? Does he provide free assessments for fitness to drive? Does he have a conflict of interest as a medical examiner for TfNSW as such a role requires an alignment with values that would allow such a person to continue to hold that role, to receive both status and financial benefit. This could be seen that such a person should demonstration a track record of extreme risk aversion to satisfy the DLA. Based on Dr Beaumont's premise any professional who is paid for their services has a conflict of interest.
Dr Beaumont accuses Dr Oberstein of 'health fraud' and seems to instruct driver licence authorities not to consider Dr Oberstein's advice:
Many subjects with impaired vision are desperate to be able to drive a car. It can have major benefits to their self-esteem, independence and job prospects. The vison impaired are a vulnerable group who will pay or do anything to achieve this goal. The person offering them BTS training and leading them to believe they can make them a safe driver, should have a high level of evidence that their training is effective. An academic with clinical expertise in bioptic devices may have a personal conviction that they can train subjects with impaired vison to become safe BTS drivers but without an evidence base they are open to severe criticism. If they have no evidence, they can make a BTS driver a safe driver, then it could be seen as a health fraud.
I disagree, for the above reasons that an academic with clinical expertise in bioptic devices is an appropriate person to re-assess application for a driving licence. Such a person may provide useful information. In keeping with the guideline their opinion should be given full consideration whilst noting the conflicts of interest. However, it is the evidence of an increased risk of an at fault MVC in BTS drivers that is paramount when deciding if such a person should be recommended for a driving licence. This evidence is reviewed below in the literature review.
Dr Beaumont refers to Dr Oberstein's handout given to potential bioptic drivers (attached) "For: Driving Instructor/ Driving Rehabilitation Specialist Re: Bioptic telescope driver training program” concluding 'In summary the expert, Sharon Oberstein provides 3 lots of evidence, which should not be recommended for a licence to drive in Australia.' based on his selective review of that document.
It is very clear from these statements by Dr Paul Beaumont that any increase in risk of an at fault crash for driving is a reason to not to licence as these people according to Dr Beaumont 'will ultimately kill or main another person'. With further use of colourful language instead of evidence and facts. On this reasoning Dr Beaumont seems to be saying no person with an increased risk should be given a drivers licence - this would include young drivers and people with a medical condition. Is it true and reasonable that the majority of the public say no increased risk is acceptable? If this were the case young drivers would not hold driver licences.
Advising the RMS on fitness to drive is a difficult problem that faces every ophthalmologist and optometrist. To suggest a person cannot drive is to affect his or her independence, self-esteem and job opportunities and can lead to depression. 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. Depression is treatable, death and quadriplegia is permanent.
The question of the level of risk that is acceptable to society is dealt with in detail in a separate document. The majority of the public say no increased risk acceptable. No one accepted a risk greater than 100%. This is critical to the relevance of the increased risk shown literature outlined below to the granting of a licence.
The evidence for vision loss, be it acuity or field of vison, and the increased risk of at fault motor vehicle crashes (MVC) is incomplete in that it does not give a precise risk figure for each level of decrease in vision. The evidence that there is an increased risk with vision loss however, is beyond doubt. It should not be dismissed because it is incomplete or lacking in precision. This is addressed in detail in a separate document.
The new guideline states “At present there is little information on the safety or otherwise of drivers using these devices.” A literature review indicates this is incorrect. The guidelines should be altered immediately.
The new guidelines states “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.” This in light of the literature is raising false hope in a group of vulnerable vision impaired subjects.
It is common sense that BTS drivers should not be considered for licensure. They can meet the requirements for acuity and visual fields tested separately, but not simultaneously, as is required when driving. The 2016 guideline was appropriate at the time and remains appropriate till the literature provides evidence that a BTS driver has no evidence of an increased risk of killing or maiming a member of the public.
The way Dr Beaumont talks about vision impaired people particularly as the founder of the MDFA and a political lobbyists rasises very serious questions to what lengths he will go and what he would say to further his agenda. What is concerning is his is making money off the backs of vision impaired people yet saying derogatory things about their capacity. This is harmful language. What else is being said in the interest of road safety, public health policy, obtaining grant funding, corporate donations, philanthropy?In his 2005 article, Howard Larkin discusses the considerations about minimum level of vision
for driving (quoted in BDA's submission to the NTC Review of the AFTD Guidelines 2021): Article:
“When should a visually impaired patient stop driving? With clinical measures uncertain, driving tests may be the best way to tell”
“Because driving is so dependent on vision, common sense dictates that driving must be unsafe beyond a certain threshold of visual impairment. This idea is so compelling that traffic authorities worldwide restrict or prohibit driving by persons with defects in visual acuity and often in visual field. Problem is, the scientific evidence linking these clinical measures of vision to unsafe driving performance is weak to non-existent, says Eli Peli, OD, professor of ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, US.
The correlation with visual acuity is especially tenuous…Dr Peli says.
“Legislators look at the state next door and they adopt similar standards because that is
what people are used to and what they will accept.
” The result is a wide variation in the vision requirements for driver licensing….
In Dr Peli’s view, these standards are not just intellectually questionable – they are potentially discriminatory. Drivers with other common medical conditions, including impaired hearing, coronary disease, and movement disorders, present a similar risk, as do drivers generally over the age of 70 years. Those drivers, however, are not singled out for restriction, Dr Peli points out. Prohibiting low-vision drivers who have demonstrated proficiency in road tests would have a negligible impact on overall accident rates at the cost of restricting the mobility of many, mostly older, citizens, Dr Peli
says.
Further, “if public safety is the issue, the evidence is overwhelming that the biggest problem is at the lower end of the age spectrum. Youth, gender, and years of driving experience are far better predictors of poor driving performance than low vision.
“The worst offenders are young men. Their accident rate is as high as 20 times that of the general population, yet no one suggests they should be denied licences,” notes Dr Peli...”
Dr Peli emphasises.
“ At the moment, we cannot tell by vision tests alone who should or shouldn’t be on the road. The only reliable test is to take them on the road and see if they can drive safely…”
“{In the USA}…all states require applicants for an unrestricted personal driver’s license to meet one (or more) vision standards, the most prevalent being that an individual have a visual acuity of 20/40 or better. The general public is likely to believe that such standards can separate safe drivers from unsafe drivers… no hard scientific evidence justifies existing vision standards for driver licensure… there certainly is no sufficient evidence supporting the belief that a particular level of visual acuity clearly distinguishes safe from unsafe drivers… numerical values representing vision-test results should not
be the sole basis for granting or denying the driving privilege. People with vision loss
who have appropriate low-vision aids and training frequently show a remarkable ability to
compensate for their diminished visual abilities.” 9(Peli:2002)
As noted above, Dr Beaumont's review of Dr Oberstein's handout has parallels to 'Orthoptics Australia Position Statement on the Use of the Bioptic Lens for Driving' (August 2020) in the way it attempts to explain why the use of a bioptic is not safe for driving. These same parallels are drawn in the human factors research commissioned by VIC Roads mentioned below.
It is noted the position statement has no research referenced, only assertions. BDA has responded to Orthoptics Australia's position statement here.
2022 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
Section 10.2.8 Telescopic lenses (bioptic telescopes)
One of our members has advised that he has had previous discussions with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists (RANZCO) which raised considerable concerns regarding the safety of these devices and indicated that “individual assessment” is not sufficient. It is strongly recommended that it be stated “These devices are not acceptable for commercial vehicle drivers.” And that the further opinion of
RANZCO be sought.
10.2.8 Telescopic lenses (bioptic telescopes)
Discussions with RANZCO have raised considerable concerns regarding the safety of these devices. They
are prescribed for patients with much reduced visual acuity and the device itself reduces visual
field. It is not considered that “individual assessment” is sufficient for commercial vehicle
driving. 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.
Role of practical driver assessment. 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).
The review report notes:
Role of practical driver assessment
The NTC’’s interim report on AFTD guidelines notes:
During the 2012 and 2016 reviews, submissions were received regarding the need to allow for practical driving assessments for people with low vision or who failed meeting the standards but would potentially be able to safely drive with a conditional licence. During those reviews, the 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). The advisory committees at the time determined that the proper application of the standards was sufficient and that practical tests would not be recognised.
A number of submissions to the current review requested that this matter be reviewed again to permit practical driving assessments for people with low vision or who are borderline for meeting the standards. A consensus position among medical experts could not be established on the suitability of a practical driver test to identify if someone with low vision could drive safely in a range of road conditions or react appropriately in emergency situations. Areas of consensus among medical and health professional stakeholders will be required before changes can be considered. No changes have been made to this section.
BDA considers that the above framing of the matter of the role of practical driver assessments
needs clarification both in the standard and amongst stakeholders. The above seems to suggest people with low vision would use a practical driving assessment ‘in lieu’ of eye sight testing for the conditional driver licence. BDA believes that such is not the intended interpretation of the AFTD Guidelines nor what happens in practice in Australia and internationally. BDA also considers that such a misunderstanding may also have led to prejudicial assumptions about people with vision impairment.
BDA notes the following statements are unfounded as there is insufficient supporting evidence
to prove such statements are true or appropriate:
● on-road assessments to be inappropriate because they are unsafe
● and not effective in assessing ability to see emergency situations
● suitability of a practical driver test to identify if someone with low vision could drive safely
in a range of road conditions or react appropriately in emergency situations
● It was not considered appropriate to grant a conditional licence based on evidence of safe driving practice (no accidents).
The medical experts (ophthalmologist) who continue to use the above language against people with vision conditions are intentionally creating everyday harm towards Australians . The way medical professionals talk about their patients/ clients matters and must be respectful. The ongoing issues experienced by people in Australia with vision conditions with lack of access to services, lack of low vision support, lack of access to rehabilitation are a direct result of deficits based language by medical professionals. There is a focus on 'prevenatable blindness' and those who are legally blind and little to no consideration to those who don't fit the funding model to access services from a vision rehabilitation provider. Almost all potential biopic drivers are in this category and are self funded.
Driver Licence Authority (DLA) medial panels - more RANZCO gatekeeping
The gatekeeping by the medical community of the AFTD Guidelines to ignore the role of the Occupation Therapy Driving Instructor goes beyond drawing the Guidelines. It is also a problem seen in every state and territory in Australia where there is the absence of OTDIs sitting on 'medical panels' - which should actually by 'Fitness to Drive Panel' because the role of the OTDI is extremely important towards rehabilitation and outside the scope of medical doctors such as ophthalmologists and health professional such as optometrists.
The NTC’s 2021 interim report on AFTD guidelines notes:
5.2.6 Medical panels
The role of medical panels in supporting licensing decision making was raised during previous reviews and was again raised in this review as a means of supporting fairness and consistency, particularly for difficult or borderline cases. Stakeholders have requested that all driver licensing agencies establish such panels.
The use of medical panels is described in Assessing Fitness to Drive Part A, section 3.3.7 Role of independent experts/panels and is at the discretion of the driver licensing agencies.
5.2.7 Medical exams for licensing and renewal
Stakeholders requested the removal of the medical examinations required on initial application for a licence and after set ages. Including a request to remove eyesight testing requirements required in some jurisdictions.
Each state and territory sets their specific requirements for medical examinations (including vision tests) and road testing, depending on the driver’s age or the type of vehicle being driven. The relevant agencies must decide if they wish to review any changes to the requirements for these examinations.
The AFTD guidelines state:
10.2.9 Exceptional cases
In unusual circumstances, cases may be referred by the driver licensing authority for further medical specialist opinion (refer to Part A section 3.3.7 Role of independent experts/panels).
BDA supports the use of medical and other specialists in assessing fitness to drive in addition to
appropriate medical/health and other testing. This includes at any entry point to the licencing system,
critical incident and period reviews.
All DLA panels must have a low vision optometrist on panel in addition to an OTDI, not just an ophthalmologist to assess fitness to drive for people who do not meet the 6/12 acuity for an unconditional drivers licence.
Despite the AFTD guidelines at section 10.2.7 requiring assessments to be done by an expert in the use of bioptic devices, DLAs have rejected driving licence applications when relevant evidence has been presented by an Australian expert in the use of bioptics. BDA has raised concerns that medical panels seem not to have been constructed by DLAs to include experts in low vision rehabilitation or bioptic use. BDA calls on DLAs to include such experts and specialists on their panels.
BDA is concerned that one jurisdiction continues to send all bioptic driving applications to their medical panel where that medical panel is believed to not have expertise in low vision driving rehabilitation nor bioptics. In correspondence with the Medical Review Unit staff, BDA has been told:
● (verbally over the phone) evey application for a bioptic drivers licence will be refused;
● (verbally over the phone) because of an incident of a person with a heart condition where the DLA staff member accepted a medical report from the wrong type of specialist and the person caused a fatal incident, the DLA will now send “all” driving applications that include medical considerations to their medical panel instead of accepting the applicant’s documents.
● (in writing) that the person’s licence is issued with the removal of the bioptic as a condition and that the person must not use their bioptic when driving.
● (in writing) that the persons drivers licence is refused because one study in the 1983s in California showed collision data of 1.9x the average population.
● (in writing) that the person's driver's licence is refused because bioptics reduce peripheral field and the person is not using it all the time to drive.
● (in writing) that the person's driver's licence is refused because bioptics are not a suitable device for driving. Despite BDA writing to the MRU several times to advise the law had been reverted and they are using the wrong standard.
The above issues have been with NSW and VIC only.
There are other jurisdictions who now will not send bioptic driving applications to their medical panel as through experience they know the application will be rejected because their medical specialists do not understand the use of the bioptics. The DLAs have decided to do this in cases where the applicant has provided a report by an Australian expert in the use of bioptics where it is recommended the person is a candidate for bioptic driving and recommended for a conditional drivers licence. BDA has had many productive discussions with some DLAs on the evidence and considerations for licensing for bioptic drivers.
The wording from 2022 reads:
10.2.8. Telescopic lenses (bioptic telescopes)
The driver licensing authority may refuse a licence if the visual acuity standards are not met without the use of a bioptic telescope (refer to section 10.2.1. Visual acuity). People seeking to use a bioptic device for driving should first contact their driver licensing authority and check whether these devices are an accepted means to meet the standards. Refer to Appendix 9 for driver licensing authority contact details.
Bioptic telescopes are devices used to compensate for reduced visual acuity. They are miniature telescopes typically mounted on the upper part of a person’s glasses. Bioptics are used momentarily and intermittently when driving, the majority of which occurs at the corrected visual acuity provided by the person’s glasses. The person drops their chin slightly to view through the telescope for magnification, then lifts their chin to view through their standard corrective lens.
At present, there is insufficient information from human factors and safety research of drivers using these devices to set standards for bioptics. As such, and due to the increased risk associated with commercial vehicle driving (refer to Part A section 4.1. Medical standards for private and commercial vehicle drivers), these devices should not be used to meet the visual acuity standards for commercial vehicles.
For private vehicle drivers, the driver licensing authority may consider information from anassessment performed by an ophthalmologist or optometrist when making its licensing decision.
BDA was disappointed to read this new wording that included the DLA may refuse a license if the visual acuity is standards are not met without the use of a biopic telescope as this is not the intentional interpretation of the assistive technology device. As noted by the research and practice, the bioptic telescope is used to meet the 6/12 (20/40) and the person vision without the bioptic is to be better then 6/60 (20/200). With the latter needing to be clinically tested as set out by the ICO 2006 report.
Read BDA's submission to this review on how a vision standard can be set for assessing fitness to drive with the conditional driver licence use of a bioptic.
In 2023, VIC Roads responded to at least two Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission complaints. One was refused a license as they did not meet the 6/24 without the bioptic and the other was given a conditional license and told because they are a learner driver and the DLA does not know the impact of use of the bioptic for learners they must not use the bioptic. We note despite VICRaods stating they assess on a case by case basis they have continued to refuse every application for a licence with use of bioptics. Further, they have retrospectively cancelled driver licences where they know a person is using a bioptic to drive. In one of their letters in 2023 to the VEOHRC VICRoads, Serge Zandegu, Head of Driver Safety Standards:
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.
Until a recent update to the Guidelines, the Department has taken a broad policy approach to adopt the National Medical Standards for licensing and has not considered a need for there to be a specific policy for the use of bioptics for drivers in Victoria.
However, following an evidence review conducted led the National Transport Commission, which involved stakeholder engagement, the Guidelines were updated, with the new edition published on 22 June 2022 containing amendments concerning the use of bioptics. The
relevant section of the Guidelines, 10.2.8, now states that there is insufficient information to set standards for bioptics and directs drivers wishing to use bioptics to contact the relevant licensing authority for advice on the use of bioptics in their jurisdiction.
As such, these amendments have prompted the Department to consider the need for specific policy requirements within Victoria to interpret and supplement the advice about bioptics within the Guidelines.
The Department wishes to undertake additional research to consider the policy requirements specific to Victoria, to clarify the position on the use of these devices in this jurisdiction.
An evidence-based approach is taken in Victoria to the making of policy decisions. Therefore, the Department has committed to undertake an independent review of the evidence base for the use of bioptics whilst driving, in line with its responsibility to enable drivers to remain driving while medically fit to do so, while also maintaining road safety for all Victorians.
The evidence review will include an investigation of driving related risk associated with the use of bioptics for individuals with vision impairment. The review will also provide a human factors perspective for the Department to inform a better understanding of the influences of the use of bioptics while driving.
The outcome of this evidence review will inform the Department’s position on the use of bioptics. If required, this will provide greater clarity about the approach for the use of bioptics while driving in Victoria and be the basis for consideration of each individual case where a driver seeks to use bioptics.
The evidence review is presently being scoped by relevant stakeholders within the Department. As such, at this juncture the Department is not able to advise on the anticipated timeframe for the completion of the review.
- the research team included no person with expertise in the use of bioptics
- instead of inclusion of a low vision optometrist, an orthoptist was used where it is known they have the above position statement on not use bioptic for driving
- the orthoptist used for the research is a member of the Macular Disease Foundation Australia (MDFA) founded by Paul Beaumont
- the human factors walk through of 19 environments did not include evidence that actual bioptic drivers were used
- no scale given for learning versus an experienced bioptic driver.
2026 - Assessing Fitness to Drive Review
In January 2026 BDA emailed the NTC to meet and discuss bioptic driving. The Strategic Engagement Advisor said he will include BDA in their outreach.
In March 2026 the authors of the above paper wrote this piece in the MIVISION online magazine: A Closer Look: Bioptic Telescopes and Fitness to Drive. MIVISION advised me the article was submitted by the MDFA.
BDA notes once again the use of bullying towards other professionals and deficits language towards people with vision conditions. Just like the RANZCO research noted above, this article demonstrates many biases, flaws and a dose of defamation towards an optometrist. This behaviour may also interest with misleading conduct, professional misconduct, breaches of research integrity. Given this obvious issue it is wonder MIVISION published the article in its current form and the message such sends as to MIVISION's independence.
Some of the issues:
- A framing bias positions bioptic drivers as people who “still want, or feel they need, to drive,” implying emotional motivation rather than functional capability. In reality, bioptics are an assistive technology used internationally to meet functional driving requirements.
- The research questions and methods described present an appearance of rigour, but they do not reflect the realities of bioptic driving, nor do they align with established Human Factors methodology. The framing of the research questions presupposes risk rather than investigating actual performance. Instead of asking whether trained bioptic drivers can meet functional driving requirements, the questions are structured to explore how bioptic use might impair performance. This is a risk‑presumptive approach, not a neutral inquiry.
- Although the authors state that a Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) framework was used to examine “real‑world driving,” the study did not involve any trained bioptic drivers, any on‑road driving, or any validated bioptic training protocols. Human Factors analysis is designed to evaluate human performance in context; applying it without observing trained bioptic drivers is a methodological mismatch. The study therefore cannot meaningfully assess the functional performance of bioptic drivers or their ability to meet the AFTD requirement to “act or react to the driving environment in a safe, consistent and timely manner.”
- The so‑called “systematic review” is also problematic. 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, and then used the resulting “gaps” to justify conclusions about risk. This is circular reasoning: the framework generates the gaps, and the gaps validate the framework.
- The “cognitive walkthroughs” used to assess driving scenarios are similarly inappropriate. Cognitive 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.
- The taxonomy itself includes broad system‑level factors such as community attitudes, licensing costs, and human rights issues, yet omits the most relevant factor: the actual performance of trained bioptic drivers.
- The article emphasising 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 implies that bioptic use inherently increases risk. Without empirical data from trained bioptic drivers, such claims are speculative and cannot be used to inform policy.
- The claim that the systematic review revealed “many large gaps in evidence” requires careful scrutiny. 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 of inquiry. The assertion that methodological quality was “generally poor” is not supported by transparent criteria, quality appraisal tools, or reproducible scoring. Without such information, this statement appears subjective and risks dismissing decades of legitimate research simply because it does not align with the authors’ preferred framework.
- The authors’ critique that most bioptic research was conducted by experts in vision science or clinical practice is also misplaced. Bioptic driving is fundamentally a vision‑rehabilitation and assistive‑technology domain. It is entirely appropriate — and expected — that the research base is led by clinicians, low‑vision specialists, and rehabilitation experts. 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. If a taxonomy is newly created, it is unsurprising that existing research does not map neatly onto it. This does not mean the evidence is lacking — only that the framework is new.
- Finally, the authors do not acknowledge that methodological quality in any field naturally evolves over time. Earlier studies reflect the technology, training, and research standards of their era. Later studies incorporate improved methods, better devices, and more refined training protocols. This is normal scientific progression, not evidence of systemic weakness.
- The visual functions listed in brackets — motion perception, dynamic visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity — are relatively recent additions to the broader driving‑vision literature. They are not routinely included in most vision‑and‑driving studies, nor are they required under the AFTD guidelines. Criticising bioptic research for not focusing on these newer variables imposes contemporary expectations retroactively onto decades of earlier work. It also misrepresents the purpose of bioptics: they are designed to address acuity‑related tasks such as reading signs, not to compensate for motion perception or glare sensitivity. Similarly, UFOV is a relatively recent research construct. UFOV is a cognitive‑aging tool developed primarily for older drivers and dementia screening. It has not been validated for low‑vision drivers, assistive‑technology users, or bioptic populations. It is also not part of the AFTD guidelines or any international bioptic licensing framework. Using UFOV to infer crash risk in bioptic drivers is therefore speculative and 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 than the absence of UFOV measures.
- The conclusion that bioptic research has not examined the effects of varying road environments reflects a misunderstanding of both the existing evidence base and the nature of assistive‑technology research. Answering this question properly would require a naturalistic driving study — the most expensive and logistically complex form of road‑safety research. Such studies are rarely conducted for any disability group or assistive technology, including amputee drivers using prostheses, drivers using hand controls, or drivers with neurological conditions. It is therefore unrealistic to expect bioptic research alone to meet a standard that is not applied elsewhere in AFTD. Internationally, however, naturalistic and on‑road studies have been conducted. This omission significantly limits the validity of their conclusions.
- The suggestion that bioptic drivers’ self‑reported avoidance of certain environments indicates increased risk is also misleading. Avoidance behaviour is a normal and adaptive form of self‑regulation observed across many driver groups, including older drivers, drivers with medical conditions, and drivers using other forms of assistive technology. AFTD explicitly recognises self‑regulation as an appropriate and expected strategy for conditional licence holders. Avoidance is therefore evidence of responsible behaviour, not evidence of impairment caused by bioptic use.
- The statement that “no evidence was found that bioptic use is likely to maintain or enhance road safety” is misleading. It conflates the absence of Australian research with the absence of global evidence, and it implies that “no evidence of enhanced safety” is equivalent to “evidence of risk.” This is the same rhetorical pattern seen elsewhere in the article: a neutral‑sounding phrase that is weighted to one side. If this standard were applied consistently, almost every conditional licence category in AFTD would be considered unsafe, as very few disability groups have naturalistic crash‑risk studies.
- The conclusion contains an internal inconsistency that limits its usefulness for evidence‑based decision‑making. The opening clause (“the results were very clear”) signals a definitive finding, yet the conclusion that follows (“does not necessarily result in safer driving”) is a hedged statement indicating uncertainty rather than clarity.
- In policy terms, “not necessarily” does not constitute evidence of harm, risk, or reduced safety. It simply reflects that the study did not demonstrate a safety benefit within its design parameters. Absence of demonstrated benefit is not equivalent to evidence of detriment. This distinction is critical when considering regulatory decisions that restrict access to an adaptive technology used safely for decades in comparable jurisdictions.
- For regulatory purposes, a hedged conclusion should be interpreted as an indicator of insufficient evidence, not as evidence against bioptic driving. In such cases, the appropriate policy response is further research — such as a naturalistic driving study — rather than pre‑emptive restriction.
Bullying? Defamation? Misleading conduct? Breaches of research integrity?
Quoting from the article the last line reads “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 the “assessed risks” were definitive or outweighed benefits, as these appear to be subjective judgements rather than measured outcomes.
The suggestion that bioptics provide only “earlier reading of some traffic signs” misrepresents the device’s purpose and the findings of Dr Oberstein’s PhD work (which is referred to earlier in the article as 'as Australian research), which demonstrates that the carrier lens monitors the present environment while the bioptic provides a brief snapshot of the future, enabling anticipation of speed‑limit changes, directional signage, and potential hazards. This anticipatory function is the core benefit of bioptic use.
There is no doubt that readers can reasonable identify Dr Oberstein from the commentary.
What do readers of this article think they read and see this conduct?
I see a factor working together to construct a narrative for their purpose and to sue that intimidate any other professional who may try to say or write contrary opinion. I also see this crafting of words and personal attacks as a distraction away from the real evidence and practice that is missing. This seems to me to be an attempt to silence professionals into not daring to say or do anything against their opinion. I can see this being done with a gang like approach with the use of potential academic oblivion and marginalisation. Was this the purpose that Dr Beaumont established the MDFA?
As a disable person I am familiar with this pattern. And I too have been bullying by public servants in road safety and driver licensing simply for being disabled - even through with 10 years of driving experience and no at fault accidents.
BDA has drafted the attached response to that article and contacted MIVISION editor to request redress. To date no response from the editor has been received.
In the meantime, it seems VICRoads who commissioned the research and the authors have been successful in convincing the NTC and Austroads and other DLA that their summary report is sufficient to ban bioptic driving across Australia.
In August 2025 BDA was contacted by a mother of sons who had recently received their driver licence with conditions minus the bioptic. When she enquired QLD DLA told her that bioptics were banned. We followed via email and in September received this 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. At this stage, it is expected that the next edition of the AFTD will be published in 2027 and will include further information on bioptics."
BDA enquired to the evidence to support the decision and what actions were in place regarding the current bioptic drivers in QLD. We were then given this response:
"Thank you for your email to the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) about bioptics for driving. Your enquiry has been forwarded to the Driver Licensing Policy team for our consideration and response.
In Queensland, a driver’s treating doctor/ medical professional plays a central role in assessing medical fitness to drive, including whether restrictions or conditions need to apply. This assessment is completed in accordance with the medical standards, principles and guidelines provided in the Assessing Fitness to Drive (AFTD) publication.
The AFTD Guidelines are developed bythe National Transport Commission with advice from experts in the medical community. The AFTD includes medical assessment standards for a range of conditions that could affect a person’s ability to drive safely. The publication is designed to guide and support assessments made by health professionals to ensure that these assessments are conducted in a consistent manner across Australia.
While bioptic lenses are not currently addressed in the AFTD, the development of a national standard for inclusion in the AFTD is currently being considered. This will form part of a comprehensive review of the AFTD which is expected to be finalised for release in 2027.Until the outcomes of the AFTD review are known, TMR maintains its position that a person’s treating doctor/medical professional is best qualified to determine a person’s fitness to drive.
If you wish to enquire further about the AFTD standards on bioptics, you may contact Austroads Road Safety & Design, Project Manager, An Rendell"
BDA contacted An Rendell and received this response from Michael Nieuwesteeg, Program Manager - Road Safety & Design, Austroads
"While Austroads is not responsible for developing the AFTD Standards, we believe that the NTC will include a comprehensive review of the evidence relating to vision and driving, including the use of bioptic lenses, in its upcoming review of the Standards. The review will also include opportunities for expert and stakeholder input. I encourage you to participate in that processonce consultation opens.
Austroads is not in a position to make any determinations or recommendations to licensing authorities regarding the acceptance or otherwise of bioptic lenses, but we are aware of the Victorian policy flowing from the La Trobe University research and we are aware ofconcerns that the absence of a definitive standard for bioptics has resulted in inconsistency in licensing determinations across the jurisdictions.
We look forward to this being resolved during the review.
Thank you again for your continued engagement and contribution to this important discussion."
The missing piece here is that Austroads holds committee meetings several times a year every year to discuss assessing fitness to drive, medical conditions and any matter associated as they are the research body. An Rendell chairs the committee. What is discussed is not transparent nor who sits on those committees and how they are formed. These committees give access to all government officials in national, state and territory jurisdictions. I discuss below the recent addition of Orthoptist Australia at the request of RANZCO - despite that orthoptists have no legal authority that their reports are acceptable for DLAs and that such a move strategically marginalises optometry.
If you would like to contact BDA to support advocacy efforts email us at: biopticdriversaus@gmail.com
My 10 year advocacy personal story
Bioptic driving undoubtedly changed my life and my story. It has given me so much life satisfaction and freedoms I was always told were not for me because I was born vision impaired. You can read about my personal journey on my blog here: https://australianbiopticdriver.blogspot.com/ where I about personal matters, not the below matters about my association with BDA.
At the time the 2016 AFTD Guidelines came into effect removing bioptics meant I would no longer be able to apply for a provisional drivers licence and see if I could drive. Like so many things in my life as a disabled person I was once again being told a system is refusing to see me, refusing to see vision impaired people, 'othering us'. For the most part in writing about my story and at first for years before I started BDA I 'secretly', 'quietly', 'behind closed doors' - I had read and seen some of the comments from others who did not understand low vision bioptic driving and I wanted to protect myself from the 'vitriol' while at the same time celebrating the wins with my close nit support network. Anyone reading this who is from a marginalised group knows exactly what this is and how it feels. The unconscious bias, the deficit slurs, the shaming culture... This was not because I thought I would be dangerous as I always believed I could drive with the rights supports. This was because my life experience has taught me that disabled people are 'undeserving' - that our existence in itself is lesser then any other person - when it comes 'crunch time' those who hold the power will pull the strings that benefit them and sacrifice the rest and the disabled token person. I have learnt this through education and through employment. An experience that epidamises this is being told by the head of HR "...you are a trailblazer for being employed" - hey my 'job' here's done! No actual work necessary!
My mindset overtime became it didn't matter if I did nothing or something societal stigma judges me so I may as well live my dreams - knowing it comes with personal risk.
Over the years I have delivered countless presentations about my bioptic driving journey and disability matters. Most have been positive but a few stand out reflective of that vitriol.
In 2019 I attended in person in Melbourne, the National Assistive Technology Conference as a main speaker about my bioptic driving journey and the work we were doing with BDA. I was energised to speak and made to feel very welcome until… I accepted a question from the audience (who I later learnt was Dr Marilyn Di Stefano, a Churchill Fellow working for VicRoads in road safety, PhD from LaTrobe university as an occupational therapist in human factors and ergonomics for cognitive impairment- and has co-authored papers with Dr Pamela Ross, also a Churchill Fellow, did her PhD in occupational therapy assessments on returning to driving after brain injury and she is one of the authors of the bioptic driving LaTrobe paper).
He question wasn't really a question, it was an accusation, she said 'don't those car modifications need to approved by your driver licence authority?' To which I advised no which was the correct answer for a heads up display, Hercules half moon mirrors, dashcam and after market parking sensors. As most people in the room knew who she is with the status and knowledge she holds just the question alone gave the inference to the crowd I was doing something wrong, I was quickly rushed off the stage and uninvited to post conference dinner. I felt wrong and shamed even though I had done nothing wrong.
Since then I have had multiple email correspondence with Dr Di Stefano regarding applications for a drivers license for several people who attempted to obtain a licence with bioptics. All applications refused.
The next day at the above conference, the last and guest note speaker was Lloyd Walker, Director of the Assistive Technology & Home Modification Market Policy and Innovation, National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). His last slide showing an elderly man with white hair, dark glasses holding a cane at the open door of the driver's seat of a car. Lloyd talked to a request from a blind person to have the NDIA fund a semi-autonomous car explaining why it was not reasonable and necessary. At question time, despite myself holding my hand up and moving around he ignored me. Upon walking up to him to talk about bioptic driving three people came up to me to say they noticed what Lloyd did and wanted to hear what I had to say and his response. I explained to him what bioptc driving was and he said it is illegal and no the NDIS will not pay and turned away from me to talk to others. I interjected to explained I had been a bioptic driver for three years at that time and it has been in Australia since the 1980s to which he was genuinely shocked. The conversation ended with me obtaining his card to talk later which we never did. I am aware however people have had their bioptic funding through the NDIS - these are mostly people with Albinism which is an eyesight condition that meets entry into the scheme through diagnosis only. A disabled person promoting his product at the conference later approached me and in an indirect way tried to reassure me on values and respectful conversations.
These events did make me wonder who was behind the above actions and that in Victoria there has been an effort to promote bioptic driving as illegal and clearly this had been going on long before me. I would gather my present upset those efforts (yay me!). For my own mental health, I later debriefed with the BDA board and Disability Leadership Institute fellows.
In 2020 I was invited to do an interview for one of the Radio Print Handicap (RPH) networks. I was interviewed by Matthew Layton, Executive Producer. I introduced him to one of our bioptic drivers whom he interviewed in person. However to interview me he insisted it must be a panel interview with Dr Paul Beaumont so there can be a debate on bioptic driving and he had already called his offices and he agreed. I of course refused as it was inappropriate to pitch a bioptic driver against an ophthalmologist so Matthew published the story without BDA input. At the end of the podcast Matthew says he is sure more will be said about bioptic driving and all the sides of the story.
- low vision optometry experiencing power imbalance dynamics from RANZCO and orthoptists
- lobby group opinion over evidence used to influence policy and regulation making
- lobby group use of power and intimidation in the eye health sector
- deficit narratives towards people with vision conditions
- use of derogatory narratives to scare policy makers
- lack of knowledge or understanding of low vision driving by the occupational therapy driving instructor community
- due to the above issues, organisations scared to take on bioptic driving in fear of being targeted next
- lack of visibility of the 'missing middle' those who don't qualify for NDIS or a drivers licence with no support.
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