Is reading in a moving car / train, harmful for the eyes?
February 8, 2010 1:00 PM Subscribe
Is reading in a moving car / train, harmful for the eyes - meaning can it lead to weak eyesight or other eye issues?
This is the conventional wisdom I have heard always. Could not find any authoritative looking sources on the web either. Any thoughts by people here?
This is the conventional wisdom I have heard always. Could not find any authoritative looking sources on the web either. Any thoughts by people here?
Response by poster: @bearwife: I would be happy to learn that it is BS. any basis for your belief that it is BS?
but i can see the logical argument - that eyes have to focus and refocus repeatedly because of the motion. possibly that eyes have to read somewhat blurred text due to such motion. and that can lead to weaker eyes.
although i can also argue otherwise also - therefore the question.
posted by shalam at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2010
but i can see the logical argument - that eyes have to focus and refocus repeatedly because of the motion. possibly that eyes have to read somewhat blurred text due to such motion. and that can lead to weaker eyes.
although i can also argue otherwise also - therefore the question.
posted by shalam at 1:09 PM on February 8, 2010
Best answer: Do you have basis for your belief that it is not?
Here's my basis why this is BS: your eyes focus back and forth tens of thousands of times a day in regular life. Probably much more than that just by driving in your car. Your eyes are constantly scanning the road, looking at instruments, checking mirrors. Driving hasn't been proven to be detrimental to your eyesight.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 1:12 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Here's my basis why this is BS: your eyes focus back and forth tens of thousands of times a day in regular life. Probably much more than that just by driving in your car. Your eyes are constantly scanning the road, looking at instruments, checking mirrors. Driving hasn't been proven to be detrimental to your eyesight.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 1:12 PM on February 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
sort of related, the myth that you need lots of light to read by is also BS and actually can be harmful to your eyes...too much light is much worse than not enough.
posted by sexyrobot at 1:19 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by sexyrobot at 1:19 PM on February 8, 2010
that eyes have to focus and refocus repeatedly because of the motion
Because of what motion? Assuming you're not jiggling or vibrating your book or magazine and are concentrating it, then it is no different from your frame of reference than it would be if you were stationary. If you mean the fact that there's movement in the background your eye may be drawn to, then that's no different than a television being on in the background or even people walking nearby.
posted by mikeh at 1:23 PM on February 8, 2010
Because of what motion? Assuming you're not jiggling or vibrating your book or magazine and are concentrating it, then it is no different from your frame of reference than it would be if you were stationary. If you mean the fact that there's movement in the background your eye may be drawn to, then that's no different than a television being on in the background or even people walking nearby.
posted by mikeh at 1:23 PM on February 8, 2010
Why would this be any more dangerous than, say, turning your head to look at another passenger (stationary, from your vantage point), then looking out the window (moving, from your vantage point). Or checking your speedometer (stationary) before refocusing on the road? Or watching a movie with a ton of motion in it that's set inside a stationary TV?
I've never heard this "conventional wisdom" before, so my guess is that it's something your family made up. Every family has stories like this. My grandmother believed that we would all get the flu if our pillowcases got wet (from having wet hair) before bed. Nearly all of these stories are nonsense.
posted by decathecting at 1:32 PM on February 8, 2010
I've never heard this "conventional wisdom" before, so my guess is that it's something your family made up. Every family has stories like this. My grandmother believed that we would all get the flu if our pillowcases got wet (from having wet hair) before bed. Nearly all of these stories are nonsense.
posted by decathecting at 1:32 PM on February 8, 2010
"I've never heard this conventional wisdom before, so my guess is that it's something your family made up"
nop, I'm from another continent and I have heard it too, all though I never really believed it
posted by WizKid at 1:44 PM on February 8, 2010
nop, I'm from another continent and I have heard it too, all though I never really believed it
posted by WizKid at 1:44 PM on February 8, 2010
I have never heard this 'conventional wisdom' either. I have spent quite a bit of time reading on trains in the UK, but not in cars because then I get motion sickness. If I'm reading on a train I can't really see the world rushing because of, you know, focussing on the book, so I don't see how this could be a problem.
The other three British people in the room are also bemused as to how this could be a problem for the eyes, although one of them mentioned potential motion sickness too.
posted by Lebannen at 2:00 PM on February 8, 2010
The other three British people in the room are also bemused as to how this could be a problem for the eyes, although one of them mentioned potential motion sickness too.
posted by Lebannen at 2:00 PM on February 8, 2010
shalam: "but i can see the logical argument - that eyes have to focus and refocus repeatedly because of the motion. possibly that eyes have to read somewhat blurred text due to such motion."
Well, your eyes do that all the time, even if you hold your head perfectly still and look at a fixed point in a non-moving environment.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:09 PM on February 8, 2010
Well, your eyes do that all the time, even if you hold your head perfectly still and look at a fixed point in a non-moving environment.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 2:09 PM on February 8, 2010
The coffeehouse I go to often has a fire place outside that burns natural gas. There's a warning on the grating that chemicals given off by the burning of natural gas is dangerous. That warning is there due to a state law (unlike the warning on the coffee cup about the coffee being hot which is there due to fear of civil lawsuits). I would think the nanny state would be looking out for our eyes as well.
If there was any truth to reading in a moving car/train, I would suspect there'd be some sort warning in place for the millions and millions of people worldwide who partake in this activity every day. And would reading road signs or billboards from a moving car/train be dangerous? I'd think there'd be PSAs on TV warning us of these dangers. I'd think my optometrist would bring it up during my office visits -- or at least there'd be some pamphlet in the waiting area.
posted by birdherder at 2:54 PM on February 8, 2010
If there was any truth to reading in a moving car/train, I would suspect there'd be some sort warning in place for the millions and millions of people worldwide who partake in this activity every day. And would reading road signs or billboards from a moving car/train be dangerous? I'd think there'd be PSAs on TV warning us of these dangers. I'd think my optometrist would bring it up during my office visits -- or at least there'd be some pamphlet in the waiting area.
posted by birdherder at 2:54 PM on February 8, 2010
that eyes have to focus and refocus repeatedly because of the motion. possibly that eyes have to read somewhat blurred text due to such motion. and that can lead to weaker eyes.
That's not a logical argument, that's two sentences which are demonstrably true (in at least some circumstances) followed by a third which has zero link to the first two. Why would it make your eyes weaker? Wouldn't the extra exercise for the muscles that focus your eyes actually make them stronger? That's what happens to every other muscle in your body after all. And as others have mentioned this is what eyes are designed to do, look at stuff and jump and move around while maintaining an illusion of constant focus. There's no logical reason why this type of reading would do anything special.
There's no physiological mechanism here, just an unsupported assumption. Instead of arguing faulty logic you should look for evidence. Given how many people read like this there should be anacedotal evidence all around (rather than basically none), optometrists should discuss it with their patients (which they don't), and my searching in pub med should bring up something, anything (which it doesn't, and I did quite a few different searches). It's so implausible that it appears scientists aren't even researching to see if it's true.
posted by shelleycat at 6:54 PM on February 8, 2010
That's not a logical argument, that's two sentences which are demonstrably true (in at least some circumstances) followed by a third which has zero link to the first two. Why would it make your eyes weaker? Wouldn't the extra exercise for the muscles that focus your eyes actually make them stronger? That's what happens to every other muscle in your body after all. And as others have mentioned this is what eyes are designed to do, look at stuff and jump and move around while maintaining an illusion of constant focus. There's no logical reason why this type of reading would do anything special.
There's no physiological mechanism here, just an unsupported assumption. Instead of arguing faulty logic you should look for evidence. Given how many people read like this there should be anacedotal evidence all around (rather than basically none), optometrists should discuss it with their patients (which they don't), and my searching in pub med should bring up something, anything (which it doesn't, and I did quite a few different searches). It's so implausible that it appears scientists aren't even researching to see if it's true.
posted by shelleycat at 6:54 PM on February 8, 2010
but i can see the logical argument - that eyes have to focus and refocus repeatedly because of the motion.
What conclusions would you arrive at if you applied this logic to other muscles?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:57 PM on February 8, 2010
What conclusions would you arrive at if you applied this logic to other muscles?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:57 PM on February 8, 2010
I only have anecdotal evidence, but I would say no. As a child I had an hour long car commute to school and read copious amounts both ways, often in very dim light. 25 years later I still do not need glasses.
posted by cftarnas at 10:42 PM on February 8, 2010
posted by cftarnas at 10:42 PM on February 8, 2010
Response by poster: thanks for all the comments!
i am reasonably convinced that reading while in a moving car or train cannot hurt the eyes.
May be that people who promulgated such conventional wisdom, confused temporary motion sickness caused by such reading to imply lasting damage to the eye.
there has to be a website devoted to questioning the 100s of such wisdom pieces that either already exist or are being created everyday in various parts of the world.
posted by shalam at 3:24 AM on February 17, 2010
i am reasonably convinced that reading while in a moving car or train cannot hurt the eyes.
May be that people who promulgated such conventional wisdom, confused temporary motion sickness caused by such reading to imply lasting damage to the eye.
there has to be a website devoted to questioning the 100s of such wisdom pieces that either already exist or are being created everyday in various parts of the world.
posted by shalam at 3:24 AM on February 17, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by bearwife at 1:04 PM on February 8, 2010