Quote Originally Posted by MadAmster View Post
Police and think in the same sentence. Oxymoron?

.... only jesting. They don't think in this case. They state that his transgression was worthy of a "naughty boy, now turn round and go home but not worth a fine". That, apparently, is what the Law says on this. I can accept that. What I do have difficulty with, and am shocked that Durham police haven't looked at it, is his "test drive" with impaired vision. That is a traffic violation in itself. What, for me, makes it worse is that he compounded his error by putting his wife and son in the car, endangering their safety as well as that of himself and all other road users. Had it been you or I doing such a "test drive" of 30 miles there and another 30 back would we get away with it?
Thing is Maddy, how do you look into it?
If his vision was impaired, I'm guessing we have to be talking about cold like symptoms?
Watery eyes for example?

But how do you follow up on that after an event?
I know he wears glasses, so must I assume wear them when driving.
That would mean he should/has declared that on his license?
You can hardly knock on someones door though, weeks later after an event for a post eye test.