Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Mono-vision might not be wise.
763 views
Skip to first unread message
Science_Research
Mar 15, 2012, 10:55:53 PM3/15/12
to
Subject: Here are the CA standards. Note remarks about mono-vision.
DMV's Vision Screening Standards
DMV is authorized to test all applicants’ vision under California
Vehicle Code (CVC §12804.9(a)(1)(E) ).
Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet
the department’s visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMV’s
vision screening standard is:
20/40 with both eyes tested together and
20/40 in one eye and
20/70, at least, in the other eye
Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a
minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best
corrected). Visual acuity is a person’s ability to see items clearly
and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or
contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you
cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license
drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard. (CVC
§12805)
Drivers With Monovision
Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or
contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision.
If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMV’s vision
screening standard.
Neil Brooks
Mar 16, 2012, 9:15:17 AM3/16/12
to
"Monovision — If you have monovision (one eye corrected for distance vision and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision) and DMV has no record of your vision condition, the DMV employee will give you a Report of Vision Examination (DL 62) and ask you to see your vision specialist. When you return with your completed DL 62, you will be asked to take a Supplemental Driving Performance Evaluation (driving test) to determine if you can drive safely."
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/senior/driverlicense/vision.htm
Don W
Mar 16, 2012, 10:30:28 PM3/16/12
to
Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
Are we going from myopia to monoocularism?
Don W
Neil Brooks
Mar 17, 2012, 1:13:19 PM3/17/12
to
On Friday, March 16, 2012 8:30:28 PM UTC-6, Don W wrote:
> Otis,
>
> Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
>
> Are we going from myopia to monoocularism?
>
> Don W
He'll never EVER admit when he's wrong (granted: he'd be doing nothing else), but ... when it makes it through even HIS impermeable skull that he's wrong ... he usually just moves on to be wrong about something else.
> Otis,
>
> Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
>
> Are we going from myopia to monoocularism?
>
> Don W
I think you've been around long enough, by now, to see that.
I'd venture a guess that a third of the things HE posts contradict HIS own assertions. I mean ... that's just hilarious !
Science_Research
Mar 17, 2012, 1:53:01 PM3/17/12
to
It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
This is an "informational" group. You can ignore concepts science,
and facts if you choose to do so.
he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
This is an "informational" group. You can ignore concepts science,
and facts if you choose to do so.
Don W
Mar 17, 2012, 4:43:12 PM3/17/12
to
Besides everything...
How did "monovision" get to b defined that way?
How did "monovision" get to b defined that way?
Neil Brooks
Mar 17, 2012, 7:41:59 PM3/17/12
to
On Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:53:01 AM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
>
> This is an "informational" group. You can ignore concepts science,
> and facts if you choose to do so.
Don: at least he's being honest about his approach to the subject....
> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
>
> This is an "informational" group. You can ignore concepts science,
> and facts if you choose to do so.
Don W
Mar 18, 2012, 4:24:02 AM3/18/12
to
If one changes the name one calls oneself...
...how can you relate to (just) things that that one may call anything
else?
...how can you relate to (just) things that that one may call anything
else?
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Mar 18, 2012, 9:59:50 PM3/18/12
to
Ray
Mar 19, 2012, 10:29:08 AM3/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
<p.cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
>> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
>> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
<p.cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
>> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
>> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
>> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
>> > > 20/40 in one eye and
>> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
>> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
>> > > 20/40 in one eye and
>> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
>> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
the problem?
Neil Brooks
Mar 19, 2012, 10:44:57 AM3/19/12
to
On Monday, March 19, 2012 8:29:08 AM UTC-6, Ray wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
>
> >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
>
>
> I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> the problem?
Otis Brown.
>
> >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
>
> >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
>
>
> I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> the problem?
Science_Research
Mar 19, 2012, 10:52:12 AM3/19/12
to
Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
>
more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
>
Neil Brooks
Mar 19, 2012, 11:19:36 AM3/19/12
to
On Monday, March 19, 2012 8:52:12 AM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
Wow.
> Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
You just NEVER have ANY idea what you're talking about, do you ?????
Just as likely -- if not more -- that the person has learned to alternate fixation, and suppress the "other" image.
Otis ? Better to be silent and thought a fool than -- year after year after year - to post and remove all doubt.
Wow. Just .... Wow !
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Mar 20, 2012, 10:59:54 PM3/20/12
to
On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
wrote:
kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
understand.
and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
notions get displaced by medical facts.
I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
called medical science.
Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
man. Or fade away.
wrote:
understand.
and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
notions get displaced by medical facts.
I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
called medical science.
Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
man. Or fade away.
Science_Research
Mar 21, 2012, 3:04:50 PM3/21/12
to
Hi Blue,
You are entitled to your disproven concept that 1) The natural eye is
NOT DYNAMIC and THERFORE 2) A neither a) Long-term near has NO EFFECT
on the refractive state of said natural eye, and b) A minus lens has
no effect on the natural eye.
That is objective science and fact -- and you are totally blind to it.
Have a nice day,
On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation" <p.clar...@gmail.com>
Neil Brooks
Mar 21, 2012, 3:50:52 PM3/21/12
to
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:04:50 PM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Hi Blue,
>
> You are entitled to your disproven concept that 1) The natural eye is
> NOT DYNAMIC and THERFORE 2) A neither a) Long-term near has NO EFFECT
> on the refractive state of said natural eye, and b) A minus lens has
> no effect on the natural eye.
>
> That is objective science and fact -- and you are totally blind to it.
>
> Have a nice day,
Damn, Otis. You are SUCH an idiot !!!
> Hi Blue,
>
> You are entitled to your disproven concept that 1) The natural eye is
> NOT DYNAMIC and THERFORE 2) A neither a) Long-term near has NO EFFECT
> on the refractive state of said natural eye, and b) A minus lens has
> no effect on the natural eye.
>
> That is objective science and fact -- and you are totally blind to it.
>
> Have a nice day,
Every time you get something wildly wrong (nearly always), you fall back on that tired old dodge.
Are you off your meds, again ?
Seriously.
Science_Research
Mar 22, 2012, 4:53:51 PM3/22/12
to
Hi Blue OD,
Did you not read the title.
This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
rambling about.
On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation" <p.clar...@gmail.com>
Neil Brooks
Mar 22, 2012, 5:16:40 PM3/22/12
to
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:53:51 PM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Hi Blue OD,
>
> Did you not read the title.
>
> This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> rambling about.
Pot ... kettle ... black.
> Hi Blue OD,
>
> Did you not read the title.
>
> This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> rambling about.
You really are either off your meds, losing your mind, or -- as usual -- both.
Dr. Big Blue Nation
Mar 22, 2012, 7:15:29 PM3/22/12
to
about but misinformation and personal bias. Is this an example of
"engineering-science".
Go build a bridge.
Neil Brooks
Mar 22, 2012, 7:33:34 PM3/22/12
to
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:15:29 PM UTC-6, Dr. Big Blue Nation wrote:
> On Mar 22, 4:53 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Blue OD,
> >
> > Did you not read the title.
> >
> > This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> > about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> > rambling about.
> >
> > On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
>
> On Mar 22, 4:53 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Blue OD,
> >
> > Did you not read the title.
> >
> > This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> > about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> > rambling about.
> >
> > On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > > > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> >
> > > > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > > > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> >
> > > > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> >
> > > > >
Don W
Mar 24, 2012, 12:42:05 AM3/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Two weeks ago I couldn't even spel it.
Now I R 1!
0 new messages