Purblind leading the Colour blind -
Down the rocky road to the AAT - again: see - HERE -. What a hellish situation to be dumped into; without prior warning it seems - according to the posted opinion. Not too hard to imagine the range and extent of emotions raging through the CVD ranks.
But it intrigues me, this anti CVD crusade, particularly when it comes from an outfit that habitually uses 'numbers in percentage' when formulating policy and regulation. Now, the insurance companies have risk assessment matrix down to a very refined art; and yet they do not penalise those, who daily operate machinery in one of the very high risk categories - i.e. driving on the roads - with CVD.
So how many people driving on the same highway as you have CVD?
"The answer is that a quite surprising number of people are affected by colour blindness. In Australia, about 8% of males and 0.4% of females suffer colour blindness to some degree."
Traffic lights, blinkers, brake lights, reversing lights, hazard lights, road signs, work crews, even the humble 'lollipop' man at the school crossing - all, in varying degree rely on 'colour' to present 'visual information' to the driver. On an average city drive the number of times the 'colour' of something - means something - is almost uncountable. Thousands of vehicles on the road at any given time - and how many 'accidents' are attributed to drivers with CVD - or even with drivers needing vision correction - not too many; insurance rates support this. There is an even lower percentage of 'airborne' accident attributed to CVD aircrew.
So why after having won some relief from stupidity has the regulator changed the parameters, seemingly without warning, after a trouble free period under alignment with the gold standard NZ and FAA system. IMO it demands no less than a formal statement of explanation - one which may be tested - in law; and put away for ever, never to darken the horizon again..
Toot - toot...
Down the rocky road to the AAT - again: see - HERE -. What a hellish situation to be dumped into; without prior warning it seems - according to the posted opinion. Not too hard to imagine the range and extent of emotions raging through the CVD ranks.
But it intrigues me, this anti CVD crusade, particularly when it comes from an outfit that habitually uses 'numbers in percentage' when formulating policy and regulation. Now, the insurance companies have risk assessment matrix down to a very refined art; and yet they do not penalise those, who daily operate machinery in one of the very high risk categories - i.e. driving on the roads - with CVD.
So how many people driving on the same highway as you have CVD?
"The answer is that a quite surprising number of people are affected by colour blindness. In Australia, about 8% of males and 0.4% of females suffer colour blindness to some degree."
Traffic lights, blinkers, brake lights, reversing lights, hazard lights, road signs, work crews, even the humble 'lollipop' man at the school crossing - all, in varying degree rely on 'colour' to present 'visual information' to the driver. On an average city drive the number of times the 'colour' of something - means something - is almost uncountable. Thousands of vehicles on the road at any given time - and how many 'accidents' are attributed to drivers with CVD - or even with drivers needing vision correction - not too many; insurance rates support this. There is an even lower percentage of 'airborne' accident attributed to CVD aircrew.
So why after having won some relief from stupidity has the regulator changed the parameters, seemingly without warning, after a trouble free period under alignment with the gold standard NZ and FAA system. IMO it demands no less than a formal statement of explanation - one which may be tested - in law; and put away for ever, never to darken the horizon again..
Toot - toot...