> But if the person wishes to check to see if he can make his vision
> SHARPER, then all he has to do is to obtain several minus lenses
> (in 1/4 diopter steps) and determine which lense clear the 20/20
> line for him. *(If that be his wish, and technical competence.)

> On Sep 11, 10:09*am, otisbr...[at]embarqmail.com wrote:
> > Response:
> > Otis> *The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment.
> > Leukoma> *...and the instrument can?
> > Otis> Like you TRUST the DMV employee to check?
> Are there moving parts in the instrument such that it can be out-of-
> focus? *I don't know, just asking, but I somehow doubt that it has to
> be "recalibrated." *On the other hand, *how could you be sure that the
> test distance is 20 feet unless you brought your own tape measure, or
> that the charts from one office to the other had the same amount of
> luminance, etc.? *I would think that the instrument is one way to
> "foolproof" the testing.
> > Otis> The Title of this section is "cheating the DMV".
> > If that instrument is cockeyed, then you are being cheated -- if
> > you verify (or your ophthamologist) verified that you pass
> > the legal requirement) and the DMV has their
> > "machine" out of wack.
> Perhaps all drivers should be required to have their vision checked
> and verified by their optometrists in order to obtain their license,
> if you think the situation warrants, and take vision checking out of
> the hands of all lay-persons.

> Response:
> Otis> *The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment.
> Leukoma> *...and the instrument can?
> Otis> Like you TRUST the DMV employee to check?

> Otis> The Title of this section is "cheating the DMV".
> If that instrument is cockeyed, then you are being cheated -- if
> you verify (or your ophthamologist) verified that you pass
> the legal requirement) and the DMV has their
> "machine" out of wack.

> On Sep 10, 11:58*pm, otisbr...[at]embarqmail.com wrote:
> > Subject: Test conditions.
> > These "boxes" can be not properly adjusted. *This is not a "plus"
> > issue.
> Yeah it is. *It's about equivalency. *You said that a child can
> prevent myopia by wearing plus lenses because it creates the optical
> equivalent of infinity.
> > The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment.
> ...and the instrument can?
> > Further, the legal definition is for 20/40 vision.
> ...and not 10/20, or 0.5, or 1 logMAR?
> > The 20 stands for 20 FEET.
> ....or 6 meters.
> > That mean the test must be done at 20 feet.
> > And the "40" means 3/4 inch letters.
> No it doesn't. *It means that the letter subtends 5 minutes of arc
> between the chart and the eye's nodal point.
> > Why not follow the letter of the law -- so their is no doubt about
> > the resultant reading?
> If I have a 10 foot test distance in my refracting lane am I breaking
> the law?

> Subject: Test conditions.
> These "boxes" can be not properly adjusted. *This is not a "plus"
> issue.

> The Snellen on the wall can not be out of adjustment.

> Further, the legal definition is for 20/40 vision.

> The 20 stands for 20 FEET.

> That mean the test must be done at 20 feet.

> And the "40" means 3/4 inch letters.

> Why not follow the letter of the law -- so their is no doubt about
> the resultant reading?

> These "boxes" can be not properly adjusted. This is not
> a "plus" issue.

> On Sep 10, 2:13*pm, otisbr...[at]embarqmail.com wrote:
> > I wish the DMV would use the standard Snellen at 20 feet -- as
> > is the legal requirement, and not their "box" with a plus lens
> > to "simulate" 20 feet.
> > Just my second-opinion,
> Why? *I thought you believed that wearing plus spectacles for near
> work can adequately simulate optical infinity. *You've stated so
> umpteen zillion times.

> I wish the DMV would use the standard Snellen at 20 feet -- as
> is the legal requirement, and not their "box" with a plus lens
> to "simulate" 20 feet.
> Just my second-opinion,

> On 2008-09-10, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <lOidnbXkCJ53RVvVnZ2dnUVZ_oTin...[at]comcast.com> ,
> > *nobody <annonym...[at]none.com> wrote:
> > > On 2008-09-09, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
> > > > corrective lenses, but I hadn't bothered to get the restriction taken
> > > > off. *I did so, with considerable effort.
> > > Did you have to get a new photo? or just pay a fee?
> > Surely you jest. *That's not "considerable effort". *I had to take a
> > driving test and make two visits to an OD, along with a couple of visits
> > to the DMV. *Another photo and the fee were trivial. *There was a lot of
> > arguing at the DMV. *They thought that I still needed corrective lenses,
> > even though the OD told me that I didn't.
> Probably depend on the clerk/office. *Will be having cataract surgery
> "soon" (go photoed/measured, etc) & will wait until 2010 when I will
> have to go in for renewal.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -