Annual Driving Tests for the Elderly?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: hippo on 4 Jul 2010 19:35 OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 05:47:37 +0000 (UTC), > am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote: > > > >Sorry about the delay. Haven't been past the optometrist, but I *did* just > >remember the product. Google 'Varilux' and go to the international site > >which *is* in English. (If you want to amuse yourself afterwards, you can > >do the questionnaire that's still in French). > > > >You can select get a range of simulations for conventional single, bi & > >multifocal lenses and also their new progressive lens. Basically if it > >delivers, you're getting a photocromatic mutifocal with *no* peripheral > >distortion or dead spots. I need to talk to my optometrist soon and see if > >the 'around $900' he mentioned was just lenses or lenses & frames. Either > >way, if they deliver what they claim, I'd see it as money well spent, > >especially for driivng or riding. Cheers > > I've got 2 pairs of these. > The photochromatic required exposure to UV to work so there is little > change when seated INSIDE a car. > They darken a little. > > $900 is a rip unless of course you're getting $600 designer frames. > > > > > OzOne of the three twins > > I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. > > Just out of interest, are you talking specifically Varilux progressives here or another mutifocal? If VL, did you get the specific driving spec, or one of the other ranges? I figure the more feedback the better. -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: OzOne on 4 Jul 2010 19:58 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:35:09 +0000 (UTC), am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote: > >Just out of interest, are you talking specifically Varilux progressives >here or another mutifocal? If VL, did you get the specific driving spec, >or one of the other ranges? I figure the more feedback the better. I have a 'normal' pair of VL for everyday (two actually, I have an older spare) and a pair that I had made for sailing, flying and driving. They are great sailing, when the full 'dimming' happens. Good for driving though in glare I prefer my prescription Serengetti. I don't fly in them now as they tint varies across the lense according to the way the sun shines on my face and is distracting. I have instead moved to bifocals with the split moved up a little so it aligns with the panel on most aircraft. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on 4 Jul 2010 20:17 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:58:21 +1000, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:35:09 +0000 (UTC), >am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote: > > >> >>Just out of interest, are you talking specifically Varilux progressives >>here or another mutifocal? If VL, did you get the specific driving spec, >>or one of the other ranges? I figure the more feedback the better. > >I have a 'normal' pair of VL for everyday (two actually, I have an >older spare) and a pair that I had made for sailing, flying and >driving. They are great sailing, when the full 'dimming' happens. > >Good for driving though in glare I prefer my prescription Serengetti. > >I don't fly in them now as they tint varies across the lense according >to the way the sun shines on my face and is distracting. >I have instead moved to bifocals with the split moved up a little so >it aligns with the panel on most aircraft. > > > > >OzOne of the three twins > >I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. Oooops, my old 'spare pair' are Transitions lenses. BTW, many years ago when I was sailing in Europe, the whole crew of the boat was fitted with UV reactive soft contact lenses that were designed to take the place of sunglasses that were forever needing cleaning of salt spray. They worked really well except for the few that were lost when the wearer was hit in the face by a wave. Thought they would become quite common but have seen nothing since then. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: hippo on 5 Jul 2010 02:07 OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:58:21 +1000, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > > >On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:35:09 +0000 (UTC), > >am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote: > > > > > >> > >>Just out of interest, are you talking specifically Varilux progressives > >>here or another mutifocal? If VL, did you get the specific driving spec, > >>or one of the other ranges? I figure the more feedback the better. > > > >I have a 'normal' pair of VL for everyday (two actually, I have an > >older spare) and a pair that I had made for sailing, flying and > >driving. They are great sailing, when the full 'dimming' happens. > > > >Good for driving though in glare I prefer my prescription Serengetti. > > > >I don't fly in them now as they tint varies across the lense according > >to the way the sun shines on my face and is distracting. > >I have instead moved to bifocals with the split moved up a little so > >it aligns with the panel on most aircraft. > > > > > > > > > >OzOne of the three twins > > > >I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. > > Oooops, my old 'spare pair' are Transitions lenses. > > BTW, many years ago when I was sailing in Europe, the whole crew of > the boat was fitted with UV reactive soft contact lenses that were > designed to take the place of sunglasses that were forever needing > cleaning of salt spray. > They worked really well except for the few that were lost when the > wearer was hit in the face by a wave. > > Thought they would become quite common but have seen nothing since > then. > > > > > OzOne of the three twins > > I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. > > Mmm... Transitions and their predecessor I have used happily since they came out but only in single focus. The multifocals (my first) had a lens from a different manufacturer and they have been far from spectacular either optically or with regard to quality - <5> sets of lenses replaced in just over a year because the coating kept breaing down. At least there's a 2 year warranty! I'll need a good reason not to specify the VL 'Ipseo' next time almost regardless of the cost. Cheers -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: OzOne on 5 Jul 2010 02:33
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 06:07:36 +0000 (UTC), am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote: >OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >> >> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:58:21 +1000, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >> >> >On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:35:09 +0000 (UTC), >> >am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1(a)REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au (hippo) wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> >>Just out of interest, are you talking specifically Varilux progressives >> >>here or another mutifocal? If VL, did you get the specific driving spec, >> >>or one of the other ranges? I figure the more feedback the better. >> > >> >I have a 'normal' pair of VL for everyday (two actually, I have an >> >older spare) and a pair that I had made for sailing, flying and >> >driving. They are great sailing, when the full 'dimming' happens. >> > >> >Good for driving though in glare I prefer my prescription Serengetti. >> > >> >I don't fly in them now as they tint varies across the lense according >> >to the way the sun shines on my face and is distracting. >> >I have instead moved to bifocals with the split moved up a little so >> >it aligns with the panel on most aircraft. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >OzOne of the three twins >> > >> >I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >> >> Oooops, my old 'spare pair' are Transitions lenses. >> >> BTW, many years ago when I was sailing in Europe, the whole crew of >> the boat was fitted with UV reactive soft contact lenses that were >> designed to take the place of sunglasses that were forever needing >> cleaning of salt spray. >> They worked really well except for the few that were lost when the >> wearer was hit in the face by a wave. >> >> Thought they would become quite common but have seen nothing since >> then. >> >> >> >> >> OzOne of the three twins >> >> I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >> >> > >Mmm... Transitions and their predecessor I have used happily since they >came out but only in single focus. The multifocals (my first) had a lens >from a different manufacturer and they have been far from spectacular >either optically or with regard to quality - <5> sets of lenses replaced >in just over a year because the coating kept breaing down. At least >there's a 2 year warranty! > >I'll need a good reason not to specify the VL 'Ipseo' next time almost >regardless of the cost. Cheers I did have problems with the coating on Transitions a long while back. I was doing a lot of oxy acetylene welding using a filtered face shield but apparently the heat was too much. OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. |