“We want the system changed to one which makes it more difficult for people with inadequate vision to continue to drive”

To be clear, the reason it sprung to mind was not to do with my own finances (for once). No – it was because of the headlines garnered by the Preston Coroner’s report into the inquests of four deaths caused by drivers who had eyesight under the legal limit.

The connection between the two may not be obvious. So let me explain.

As you may have seen, vision and driving is an issue which the AOP has been campaigning about for years. Partly, our interest is somewhat parochial: it is commonplace for us to receive emails and calls from concerned members who have told patients that they should not be driving but who they suspect – or even occasionally have been told by the patient – that their advice is being disregarded. What should they do? they ask. How do they go about balancing their duty of confidentiality to the patient with their obligation to report the driver to the DVLA if they genuinely feel that the public is at risk?

But the reason we have devoted so much time over the past decade to running our annual Don’t swerve a sight test campaign is not to inform our members of how to square this particular circle. The reason is simple: we want the system changed to one which makes it more difficult for people with inadequate vision to continue to drive. In our view, any system which allows a driver to self-certify that they have adequate eyesight is wide open to abuse: rather than allowing self-certification, the DVLA should require regular proof that a driver’s eyesight is up to the legal standard. And, in the case of older drivers, the period between tests should be kept as short as possible, with intervals of no more than three years for those over 70.

We want the system changed to one which makes it more difficult for people with inadequate vision to continue to drive. In our view, any system which allows a driver to self-certify that they have adequate eyesight is wide open to abuse

From an organisational perspective, our campaign over the years has been incredibly successful. In media coverage terms, Don’t swerve is one of our most reliable performers, guaranteeing regular headlines and giving us a perfect opportunity to put optometry in the public’s minds. If one were a cynical brand-builder, driving and eyesight is the gift that keeps on giving.

But the AOP is not cynical; it is principled. What we want is not our name in lights, but improved public protection. And, despite all the headlines and political criticism, the authorities were steadfast in their refusal to admit there was a problem, let alone consider implementing a solution. Even when we wrote directly to the CEO of the DVLA pleading for action, we received a dusty response.

The Transport Minister felt it necessary to tell the Transport Select Committee two days later that the Government is now actively considering changing the system

This is what has made the results of the recent Preston Inquest so encouraging. Not only did the inquest receive a huge level of media and political coverage, but the detailed and well-researched coroner’s findings – findings based not merely on the evidence given in court by the AOP (and the College of Optometrists, among others), but also on the confidential briefings we had provided during the process – for the first time seem to have shaken the complacency of the Government. Not only did the DVLA find it necessary to instruct its own senior barrister for the hearing (let me tell you, being cross-examined by a hostile KC is no fun), but the Transport Minister felt it necessary to tell the Transport Select Committee two days later that the Government is now actively considering changing the system.

Suddenly, then, the world has changed. In change-making terms, we now must pivot quickly from seeking to convince the Government that there is a problem, to engaging with them about the solution. The campaigning bit is over; now comes the detailed policymaking.

All of a sudden, but after 10 years hard graft… Change-making, like bankruptcy, happens in two ways: first slowly, then quickly.