Comments on: Corrective Lens Restriction?

Question: Corrective Lens Restriction?

fogster — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:46:26 -0800

Lengthy question about corrective lens restrictions on a NH drivers license. There's

I almost always wear contacts when driving, but sometimes forget. (I can see well enough to get by without them.) When renewing my license today, I didn't want to lie about wearing contacts, and really didn't want to remove, and then try to put back in, my contacts in the middle of the DMV, so I told her to just go ahead and put a corrective lens restriction on my license. Which leads to two related questions:

- If I get pulled over, am I now going to have to prove that I'm wearing contacts? How is this done? Do I have to remove them, or can they just look into my eye? Do officers check for this?

- If I ever forget and drive without them, what are the penalties?

(State is New Hampshire, if it matters.)

By: kindall

kindall — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:04:48 -0800

It's really only going to be a factor if you do something that suggests to the officer that your vision is impaired. I've never had a police officer even mention it.

By: toxic

toxic — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:07:29 -0800

Do officers check for this?

I've had an officer ask me, after seeing the restriction on my license, but he didn't then obviously check.

However, anyone who's reasonably observant (especially if they're trained) can look you in the eye and determine whether you're wearing your lenses or not. If you know what to look for (the ring around the iris), and you're specifically looking for it, it's hard to miss.

In California, a "corrective lens restriction" is just that... the validity of your license is contingent on your vision being corrected. If you're not wearing your lenses, you're treated as an unlicensed driver.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:20:03 -0800

From what I understand, most times you have any sort of restriction on your license it is exactly that: a restriction.

But if you really want to be sure, why don't you call the lady at the DMV back and ask her, as you could have done when you were there? (And why didn't you, out of curiosity?)

In New Hampshire, is it actually necessary to have a contacts-restriction on your license just because you were wearing them at the DMV? The way it works here (British Columbia), or the way it did when I had my license renewed, was more dependent on the strength of the prescription, rather than whether I was wearing them at the time or not.

By: spaceman_spiff

spaceman_spiff — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:23:06 -0800

By: fogster

fogster — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:50:56 -0800

It didn't cross my mind at the time to ask.

I could have taken the eye exam there without my contacts, but it would've been a big hassle. I only recently started to wonder if it would cause a big hassle later on. You'd think my prescription would count for something, but apparently not.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:13:07 -0800

The God Complex: I don't know about NH, but in Illinois, your restrictions are based on the circumstances of your test. So I'm not allowed to drive a manual, for example, or a car without external mirrors.

Really? Interesting. It's not like that all here. I only learned to drive a standard a few months ago, but it didn't require any sort of change on my license.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:15:06 -0800

You'd think my prescription would count for something, but apparently not.

Do you ever wear glasses? If you do, just throw one of the old pairs you don't use (if you're like me, you have several) in your glove box. If you're pulled over, or see a roadblock, just pull them out and put them on.

note: I am assuming your prescription isn't strong and your not wearing contacts won't result in the untimely death of any people or wildlife! ;)

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:06:41 -0800

If you're pulled over, or see a roadblock, just pull them out and put them on.

Cops do tend to watch what you do after they pull you over. I don't advise doing this.

By: plaidrabbit

plaidrabbit — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:03:02 -0800

I STRONGLY advise against making a move for your glovebox, FOR ANY REASON, if you're stopped.

That is seriously a good way to maybe catch a bullet to the face, or at least be dragged out of your car by your hair.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:38:46 -0800

Must be an American thing ;)

Most people I know get their registration out pre-emptively when they've been pulled over. Besides, everyone knows it's better to keep your gat undre the seat, not in the glovebox.

By: plaidrabbit

plaidrabbit — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:13:18 -0800

No, no.

Perhaps that was strongly worded. It's not a good idea:

1) At night.
2) Not many cars.

Policemen can be jumpy if they think someone is making a move for something. Every piece of advice I've ever heard is to do nothing until the officer gets to the car, tells you what he needs, and can watch you go to get the registration.

I hate to say it, but if you're not white, you might want to put some extra emphasis on this advice. :(

By: jcwagner

jcwagner — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:28:36 -0800

"I don't know about NH, but in Illinois, your restrictions are based on the circumstances of your test. So I'm not allowed to drive a manual, for example, or a car without external mirrors."

I don't know about Illinois, but in Illinois, this isn't true. Seriously, though, it's not.