Latest on colour blindness testing

[ES21]

2.1.8.1 Railway undertakings shall not permit train drivers with defective colour vision to
drive trains on Network Rail managed infrastructure.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Schedule 1 Requirement
A.1.27(2) (e )Normal colour vision: use of a recognised test, such as Ishihara, as well as another recognised test if required,
Guidance
Individuals who pass a properly conducted Ishihara test can be considered to have normal colour vision for the purposes of this requirement. The recognised doctor may also use other validated tests of colour vision at their discretion, for example if acquired colour vision deficiency is suspected.
A.1.28 Different tests may not be equivalent when measuring the same aspect of colour vision. Therefore, some individuals may be able to pass one test but not another and this has important implications for interoperability and for the employee that wishes to change their employer or job.
A.1.29 Advice on other validated tests of colour vision can be found in RSSB’s final research report T940 Identification of a robust colour-vision testing protocol for the rail industry.

 

[Av80r]

2.1.8.1 Railway undertakings shall not permit train drivers with defective colour vision to
drive trains on Network Rail managed infrastructure.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I wouldn't say it is clear cut as further down it mentions a medical practitioner can use alternate methods to prove colour vision to be normal if the Isihara test is failed. This is what the OP was basically asking, and it looks like as with other industries, you are given a chance to use alternate methods to prove your colour vision isn't defective.

Are you sure you know (f)ATPL holders with colour deficiency?

They are "colour safe", their defect has no impact on operational safety and they can perform duties without any difference to those with normal colour vision. I assume all that means is that their defect was only regarding colours irrelevant to operations, but both hold full ATPLs and are employed in the UK. Navigators at sea can also pass with "colour safe" so long as their deficiency has no bearing on their safety critical role.

Just to reiterate... It doesn't appear the railway uses the term colour safe, as stated above defects are not allowed. The point here is can we use different tests to prove if we are defective or not, and so far the anecdotal evidence says you can't but the empirical evidence says you can.

Seems to be a good debate, it would be good to find out for certain.

 

[43066]

I wouldn't say it is clear cut as further down it mentions a medical practitioner can use alternate methods to prove colour vision to be normal if the Isihara test is failed. This is what the OP was basically asking, and it looks like as with other industries, you are given a chance to use alternate methods to prove your colour vision isn't defective.


They are "colour safe", their defect has no impact on operational safety and they can perform duties without any difference to those with normal colour vision. I assume all that means is that their defect was only regarding colours irrelevant to operations, but both hold full ATPLs and are employed in the UK. Navigators at sea can also pass with "colour safe" so long as their deficiency has no bearing on their safety critical role.

Just to reiterate... It doesn't appear the railway uses the term colour safe, as stated above defects are not allowed. The point here is can we use different tests to prove if we are defective or not, and so far the anecdotal evidence says you can't but the empirical evidence says you can.

Seems to be a good debate, it would be good to find out for certain.

I think the key point from the above guidance is:

Individuals who pass a properly conducted Ishihara test can be considered to have normal colour vision for the purposes of this requirement.

So TOCs simply default to only taking people on who can pass the Ishihara test, which is regarded as a gold standard, can be quickly and easily incorporated into the medical, and means that person has normal colour vision as far as the regulator is concerned.

Accepting other tests would incur more expense and would open up a huge potential can of worms the first time a driver who had been unable to pass Ishihara spadded.

 

[Mattydo]

They are "colour safe", their defect has no impact on operational safety and they can perform duties without any difference to those with normal colour vision.

Interesting just had a gander through the CAA guidelines and indeed it does mention colour safe. But then my company AME’s have always been a bit on the mean side.

Obviously what works for the CAA may not work for the railways but it’s an interesting debate.

 

[Av80r]

Looking at other tests would incur more expense and would open up a huge potential can of worms the first time a driver who had been unable to pass Ishihara spadded.

I think they'd be sailing quite close to the wind on discrimination if the legal guidance states alternative methods can be used but you discount it on cost and time, but that would be for solicitors and suits to decide. Regardless, the alternative measurements are only allowed if the governing body is confident it is indeed an alternative as opposed to a workaround.

Interestingly CAA, RSSB, MCA, ONR and DVLA all mention that Ishihara is a primary method because it is 1) easy to use and 2) quick to show replicable results but all mention that alternate methods can be used to show the same level of colour vision - reading between the lines, this means the other methods are difficult and slow to show replicable results. I'm still to see anywhere stating that they can't be used on the railways though, but again, it is a relatively old document we're now quoting and things may have changed.

Interesting just had a gander through the CAA guidelines and indeed it does mention colour safe. But then my company AME’s have always been a bit on the mean side.

Obviously what works for the CAA may not work for the railways but it’s an interesting debate.

I've been having a quick read through tonight, it's quite eye opening how many conditions they allow you to have whilst being unrestricted!

 

[ComUtoR]

It doesn't matter which test you take, if you fail, you cannot be a Driver.

 

[43066]

I think they'd be sailing quite close to the wind on discrimination if the legal guidance states alternative methods can be used but you discount it on cost and time, but that would be for solicitors and suits to decide. Regardless, the alternative measurements are only allowed if the governing body is confident it is indeed an alternative as opposed to a workaround.

I suppose the point in this case is that the regulator has said it is satisfied that passing Ishihara = acceptable colour vision for the purposes of the requirements, others may be available but aren’t in the same category. TOCs are naturally going to go with this and be within their rights to do so.

It would surely be down to the rail regulator to change the guidance before TOCs can be expected to change their approach to this. I think it’s pretty clear that until that changes (and however many times we debate it on here!), no ability to pass Ishihara = no drivers’ key.

 

[ES21]

Isn't 'guidance' different from 'regulation' though? In my previous profession, if you had good reason to deviate from guidance then nothing to stop you, you just had to be able to justify it if required. The TOCs just choose not to?

 

[43066]

Isn't 'guidance' different from 'regulation' though? In my previous profession, if you had good reason to deviate from guidance then nothing to stop you, you just had to be able to justify it if required. The TOCs just choose not to?

The *requirement* is for “normal colour vision”. The guidance states that someone who can pass Ishihara is deemed to meet the “normal colour vision“ requirement (noting that alternative tests *might* be acceptable if equivalent, but also that they might not be equivalent).

Based on that, if you were recruiting a load of candidates to be train drivers, what would you do? I’d simply ask them to sit the Ishihara and be done with it. Surprise surprise that’s exactly what the TOCs do.

 

[Av80r]

It doesn't matter which test you take, if you fail, you cannot be a Driver.

As I've mentioned, it's clear you cannot have defective vision... but it's clear you can take an alternative, approved test. It just doesn't mention when this is the case and exactly which other tests can be used. There isn't only one test which can prove colour vision, there are literally dozens, and every industry mentioned seems to acknowledge there are other tests which can be used in certain circumstances.

I suppose the point in this case is that the regulator has said it is satisfied that passing Ishihara = acceptable colour vision for the purposes of the requirements, others may be available but aren’t in the same category. TOCs are naturally going to go with this and be within their rights to do so.

It would surely be down to the rail regulator to change the guidance before TOCs can be expected to change their approach to this. I think it’s pretty clear that until that changes (and however many times we debate it on here!), no ability to pass Ishihara = no drivers’ key.

This is anecdotal still (not saying it is wrong), as the literature so far suggests this isn't the case OR it isn't quite that simple.

Isn't 'guidance' different from 'regulation' though? In my previous profession, if you had good reason to deviate from guidance then nothing to stop you, you just had to be able to justify it if required. The TOCs just choose not to?

Depends on what the RSSB actually is, maybe guidance was the wrong word and they are actually regulations. I'm not sure in this exact example.

The *requirement* is for “normal colour vision”. The guidance states that someone who can pass Ishihara is deemed to meet the “normal colour vision“ requirement (noting that alternative tests *might* be acceptable if equivalent, but also that they might not be equivalent).

Based on that, if you were recruiting a load of candidates to be train drivers, what would you do? I’d simply ask them to sit the Ishihara and be done with it. Surprise surprise that’s exactly what the TOCs do.

It isn't really about what I would do, it's about what I'm supposed to do. There aren't many (if any) industry approved medical examiners in this country given the free reign to do what they like, it's a highly regulated job and the paperwork is staggering for what actions they are to take in certain situations. If we let opinion dictate what these doctors did then we'd have plenty of people at the wrong standard in all safety critical industries. I'd struggle to believe that train driver medicals examiners are a rogue profession that acts outwith the norm.

As always, happy to be proven wrong with empirical evidence! I've worked for years on helping people into both of my previous walks of life, and I always found it staggering how many people were put off by the anecdotal offerings of various forums only to find they were actually able to proceed into the career.

 

[PupCuff]

As I've mentioned, it's clear you cannot have defective vision... but it's clear you can take an alternative, approved test. It just doesn't mention when this is the case and exactly which other tests can be used. There isn't only one test which can prove colour vision, there are literally dozens, and every industry mentioned seems to acknowledge there are other tests which can be used in certain circumstances.

This is anecdotal still (not saying it is wrong), as the literature so far suggests this isn't the case OR it isn't quite that simple.

Depends on what the RSSB actually is, maybe guidance was the wrong word and they are actually regulations. I'm not sure in this exact example.

It isn't really about what I would do, it's about what I'm supposed to do. There aren't many (if any) industry approved medical examiners in this country given the free reign to do what they like, it's a highly regulated job and the paperwork is staggering for what actions they are to take in certain situations. If we let opinion dictate what these doctors did then we'd have plenty of people at the wrong standard in all safety critical industries. I'd struggle to believe that train driver medicals examiners are a rogue profession that acts outwith the norm.

As always, happy to be proven wrong with empirical evidence! I've worked for years on helping people into both of my previous walks of life, and I always found it staggering how many people were put off by the anecdotal offerings of various forums only to find they were actually able to proceed into the career.

Colourblindness isn't a one size fits all thing. The relevant standard as quoted correctly above states that Railway undertakings shall not permit train drivers with defective colour vision to drive trains on Network Rail managed infrastructure.

If you can't pass one colourblindness test, but you can pass others, that doesn't imply that your colour vision is any less defective in relation to what was tested via the first test, but it may indicate that you have a different type of colourblindness, or at a milder level.

The law (The Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010) says that train drivers have to hold a train driving licence and that they cannot be issued that license unless they have passed a medical examination, Schedule 1 (2e) states that they have to have:

normal colour vision: use of a recognised test, such as Ishihara, as well as another recognised test if required,

Clearly the decision as to whether a person's colour vision is normal or not has to be made by a medical professional, using at least one recognised test or two if required, however it is important to be clear, both the law and industry standards specify that there must be no defective colour vision. That is not saying, keep trying different tests until you find one which gives you the results you want. It is not saying, well, you're only a bit colour blind, you'll be fine. Under current requirements, legally colour vision of train drivers on the mainline railway must not be defective.

That said, I'm always of the opinion that as the requirements of a train driver role change, and taking into account any improvements in the medical field surrounding colourblindness, there is no reason that this may not change in the future. I can't see it happening soon, but who knows, perhaps it will and if anyone wishes to challenge the requirements on the basis of good practice from other industries or changing medical advice then I'd never stop them from doing that.

 

[Av80r]

That is not saying, keep trying different tests until you find one which gives you the results you want. It is not saying, well, you're only a bit colour blind, you'll be fine. Under current requirements, legally colour vision of train drivers on the mainline railway must not be defective.

I think we're all quite aware that this discussion isn't about "keep doing it until you pass it", it's more about finding absolute evidence for the OP that his/her potential failure of Ishihara means 0% chance of becoming a train driver in the UK as other testing (which can prove full, non-defective colour vision) is not offered in any situation. As discussed already, this same theory circulates the pilot's forum "pprune" time after time with old hands trying to convince newcomers that they have no chance of becoming a pilot or air traffic controller if they can't pass the Ishihara test... this is so far from the truth that it's sad that passionate people who meet the vision standards are being convinced otherwise. A short search lead me to another forum for ship's navigators and it seems the same argument comes up there time and time again there with several fors and againsts and nobody can actually say whether they're right or wrong.

We can see there are several mentions of alternative testing methods but sadly nobody has the detail on exactly when/why these would be offered, it may be the case that it isn't offered to those who fail Ishihara but may be offered to those suspected of having blue-yellow colourblindness which Ishihara cannot diagnose but can hint at.

Sadly this may end up as purely anecdotal, and we'll never know until someone experiences it and can give their account (if you believe them, if not, it remains anecdotal!). As mentioned, it would be good if similar industries could learn from eachother on things like this. I'm fairly confident if pilots can safely fly a plane with 470 people onboard at 500mph having failed an Ishihara test (but passed another approved test) whilst still being able to identify the red-green navigation lights at a closing speed of 1000mph and distance of 20 miles that a train driver can remain a safe operator having failed the same test (but passed another approved test). Interestingly the EASA medical for pilots mentions only two tests will prove a pilot to have perfect colour vision, the third one allowed only certifies him/her as colour safe.

 

[221129]

nobody has the detail on exactly when/why these would be offered

They won't be offered. At least not to a new starter anyway.

 

[irish_rail]

I think we're all quite aware that this discussion isn't about "keep doing it until you pass it", it's more about finding absolute evidence for the OP that his/her potential failure of Ishihara means 0% chance of becoming a train driver in the UK as other testing (which can prove full, non-defective colour vision) is not offered in any situation. As discussed already, this same theory circulates the pilot's forum "pprune" time after time with old hands trying to convince newcomers that they have no chance of becoming a pilot or air traffic controller if they can't pass the Ishihara test... this is so far from the truth that it's sad that passionate people who meet the vision standards are being convinced otherwise. A short search lead me to another forum for ship's navigators and it seems the same argument comes up there time and time again there with several fors and againsts and nobody can actually say whether they're right or wrong.

We can see there are several mentions of alternative testing methods but sadly nobody has the detail on exactly when/why these would be offered, it may be the case that it isn't offered to those who fail Ishihara but may be offered to those suspected of having blue-yellow colourblindness which Ishihara cannot diagnose but can hint at.

Sadly this may end up as purely anecdotal, and we'll never know until someone experiences it and can give their account (if you believe them, if not, it remains anecdotal!). As mentioned, it would be good if similar industries could learn from eachother on things like this. I'm fairly confident if pilots can safely fly a plane with 470 people onboard at 500mph having failed an Ishihara test (but passed another approved test) whilst still being able to identify the red-green navigation lights at a closing speed of 1000mph and distance of 20 miles that a train driver can remain a safe operator having failed the same test (but passed another approved test). Interestingly the EASA medical for pilots mentions only two tests will prove a pilot to have perfect colour vision, the third one allowed only certifies him/her as colour safe.

I can give such an account as it affected someone extremely close to me.
He/she went for the airline pilots medical in 2006 and narrowly failed ishihara . They were then allowed to do the lantern test, which they passed with ease and were thus passed fit as an airline pilot.
Anyone that says fail ishihara and you are out is plain wrong.

 

[ComUtoR]

https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GOGN3655%20Iss%202.pdf

Appendix B

 

[PupCuff]

I think we're all quite aware that this discussion isn't about "keep doing it until you pass it", it's more about finding absolute evidence for the OP that his/her potential failure of Ishihara means 0% chance of becoming a train driver in the UK as other testing (which can prove full, non-defective colour vision) is not offered in any situation. As discussed already, this same theory circulates the pilot's forum "pprune" time after time with old hands trying to convince newcomers that they have no chance of becoming a pilot or air traffic controller if they can't pass the Ishihara test... this is so far from the truth that it's sad that passionate people who meet the vision standards are being convinced otherwise. A short search lead me to another forum for ship's navigators and it seems the same argument comes up there time and time again there with several fors and againsts and nobody can actually say whether they're right or wrong.

Other testing may be able to prove full, non-defective colour vision, however the question remains, if one has full, non-defective colour vision, how did they fail to pass an Ishihara test? I'm a railway professional not a medical professional so that is a question I cannot answer. Candidates are by all means welcome to go for the medical and fight it out, so to speak, but it isn't a case of saying x test measures x type of colourblindness which I have, can I do y test instead which measures y type of colourblindness which I don't have so I'll pass. The medical professional will need to be certain that there is no defect whatsoever of colour vision to pass the person medically fit and it is the medical professional's word that will judge to the railway undertaking whether or not the candidate meets the standard.

Ultimately in the case of the OP, without knowing what tests he actually took it just isn't possible to say with any certainty whether it would be comprehensive enough to meet the rail standard.

You're referring to the aviation and maritime industries which appear to have less strict requirements in respect of colour vision than the rail industry does for train drivers. My understanding is certainly with the aviation industry defective colour vision isn't a bar to becoming a pilot (I don't know about ATC). Whereas with the rail industry for train drivers it is - as has been evidenced by the provision of the relevant laws and industry standards.

 

[WrongRoad]

I believe that a potential airline pilot seeking employment has to fund their own class 1 medical (Maybe different for pilots employed by an airline.) failure at the medical for colourblindness does not stop the potential candidate for trying to seek alternative tests at their own expense and hope these are accepted by an airline if passed.The railways are different you can’t fund your own test so have to follow the rules laid down my the RSSB/DOT. At the moment those standards are what have been described.

 

[Av80r]

They won't be offered. At least not to a new starter anyway.

We're trying to find evidence of this, someone saying it with such certainty must have access to empirical evidence granting them such certainty?

https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GOGN3655%20Iss%202.pdf

Appendix B

This, like everything else we've found, doesn't seem to give a clear-cut answer other than 1) you MUST have perfect colour vision (nobody is disputing this) and 2) there is a recognition of alternative tests but no mention of when they'd be used or why.

I believe that a potential airline pilot seeking employment has to fund their own class 1 medical (Maybe different for pilots employed by an airline.) failure at the medical for colourblindness does not stop the potential candidate for trying to seek alternative tests at their own expense and hope these are accepted by an airline if passed.The railways are different you can’t fund your own test so have to follow the rules laid down my the RSSB/DOT. At the moment those standards are what have been described.

I'd say it is fairly 50/50 on whether aircrew self fund or not, most companies have an aeromedical examiner (AME) inhouse on their occupational health team and you cannot use anyone else as they're vetted and approved by that company. If you fail a medical it is on a central system that all AMEs have access to so you can't mess the system about by continually skipping around until you pass. Following along with what irish said, when you fail the Ishihara test you can normally take the other tests at the same time and they can verify there and then for sure whether you have perfect colour vision, defective vision but in a range considered safe or defective vision that is unsafe.

Other testing may be able to prove full, non-defective colour vision, however the question remains, if one has full, non-defective colour vision, how did they fail to pass an Ishihara test? I'm a railway professional not a medical professional so that is a question I cannot answer.

I'm also not a medical professional but it would be good to find out why people can pass other comprehensive tests but fail the Ishihara test, it seems to be documented but nothing documents it in detail. Some reference that the Ishihara test needs to be administered in a very strict manner and failures can be down to practitioner error on lighting levels, angles, time given or quality of the plates.

 

[irish_rail]

I believe that a potential airline pilot seeking employment has to fund their own class 1 medical (Maybe different for pilots employed by an airline.) failure at the medical for colourblindness does not stop the potential candidate for trying to seek alternative tests at their own expense and hope these are accepted by an airline if passed.The railways are different you can’t fund your own test so have to follow the rules laid down my the RSSB/DOT. At the moment those standards are what have been described.

No this was an airline medical paid for by the prospective employer and the lantern test was carried out on the day straight after the ishihara test was (very narrowly ) failed, I believe he / she struggled on just 2 plates. Obviously if it was a clear fail I'm sure the lantern wouldn't be offered but because they needed a second attempt at 2 plates this was only very very marginal and just as likely confusion at ishihara as it is colour blindness. To the best of my knowledge they got top Mark's on lantern test.

 

[43066]

Not sure there’s any way of moving this discussion onwards, unless someone has a medical coming up, and wouldn’t mind asking the examiner!

EDIT: although it’s notable that the subject of this thread has come up regularly over the last few years. I can’t once recall anyone posting to say they had failed Ishihara, and had successfully gone on to get a key, which perhaps tells its own story.

 

[moggie]

https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GOGN3655%20Iss%202.pdf

Appendix B

Indeed, and section B2.3 is the critical explanation why a candidate either passes Ishihara or fails their medical I believe. As PupCuff states one could always attempt to make a plea for leniency (i.e. adopt an alternative test) but in truth why would the employer be motivated to show such flexibility in the context of a more than adequate supply of candidates where such doubts simply don't exist. I can think of a few incentives, not least related to those stated in the relevant section of the RGS why the prospective employer will take a firm line.

 

[irish_rail]

Not sure there’s any way of moving this discussion onwards, unless someone has a medical coming up, and wouldn’t mind asking the examiner!

EDIT: although it’s notable that the subject of this thread has come up regularly over the last few years. I can’t once recall anyone posting to say they had failed Ishihara, and had successfully gone on to get a key, which perhaps tells its own story.

Well like I said I failed it first time I took it and have been a driver now for many years as I have passed it every time since so I am an example of someone who failed it and still got a key

 

[43066]

Well like I said I failed it first time I took it and have been a driver now for many years as I have passed it every time since so I am an example of someone who failed it and still got a key

Yes but you said you failed it because you’d misunderstood/felt nervous. Clearly you’ve since passed it many times!!

I mean someone who is physically incapable of passing it, who has taken another test, and gone on to get a key.

 

[PupCuff]

Well like I said I failed it first time I took it and have been a driver now for many years as I have passed it every time since so I am an example of someone who failed it and still got a key

Yes, but if you had failed it, kept on failing it, then said, well, can I try a different test instead, it is likely to have been a different story.

Indeed a re-test would allay some of the concerns surrounding lighting levels, condition of plates etc in Av80r's post upthread, if the candidate failed it because of one of those variables on the first test they would likely not feature on the retest so the candidate would be fine.

 

[Av80r]

but in truth why would the employer be motivated to show such flexibility in the context of a more than adequate supply of candidates where such doubts simply don't exist.

Because all employers have a responsibility to approach medicals and disabilities with fairness as to not disadvantage someone for reasons beyond their control, and there are very strict rules on how to do this. I don't know of any company that willingly flirts with the 2010 Equality Act during the employment process. The links posted all mention the equality act and the implications around conducting medicals whilst abiding by the act.

Having a vast supply of candidates absolutely won't be the reason they don't offer alternative testing, IF is it the case (we're still to factually determine). If companies or doctors are changing medical standards to suit themselves they'll be taking a fine line on discrimination as where does it stop? Should they also tell those with unacceptably high BMI's who happen to be bodybuilders that they refuse to use waist circumference rather than BMI so they fail, as there are suitable numbers of skinny or fat-but-not-too-fat people waiting outside? This is the reason medicals, as far as I know, are always strict in the UK and if person X has the same condition as person Y, they will be generally treated the same without influence from the employer.

Somewhere there will be a guide for physicians who administer these tests, the one for aviators is available online and it's basically a flow chart of options should someone fail any test. It means no one physician can deviate from the standards and thus it is kept fair and consistent across the board. It is clear cut on it who gets what result.

Yes, but if you had failed it, kept on failing it, then said, well, can I try a different test instead

Just to reiterate, we're not talking about doing this. We're talking about being offered, BY the medical practitioner, an alternative test if they believe your result on the Ishihara test isn't representative of your actual colour vision.

 

[RBSN]

The recognised doctor may also use other validated tests of colour vision at their discretion, for example if acquired colour vision deficiency is suspected.

Just wouldn’t happen. They don’t have the time to be re-testing for a single person when there’s 1,000 other candidates

 

[RBSN]

I wouldn't say it is clear cut as further down it mentions a medical practitioner can use alternate methods to prove colour vision to be normal if the Isihara test is failed ...and so far the anecdotal evidence says you can't but the empirical evidence says you can ...

If you fail the Isihara test you will fail at the medical stage and your application will not be taken further.

Make no mistake this is fact. Regardless of what other industry practises are or what it says regarding re-testing, if you fail you fail.

 

[43066]

Because all employers have a responsibility to approach medicals and disabilities with fairness as to not disadvantage someone for reasons beyond their control, and there are very strict rules on how to do this. I don't know of any company that willingly flirts with the 2010 Equality Act during the employment process. The links posted all mention the equality act and the implications around conducting medicals whilst abiding by the act.

Having a vast supply of candidates absolutely won't be the reason they don't offer alternative testing, IF is it the case (we're still to factually determine). If companies or doctors are changing medical standards to suit themselves they'll be taking a fine line on discrimination as where does it stop? Should they also tell those with unacceptably high BMI's who happen to be bodybuilders that they refuse to use waist circumference rather than BMI so they fail, as there are suitable numbers of skinny or fat-but-not-too-fat people waiting outside? This is the reason medicals, as far as I know, are always strict in the UK and if person X has the same condition as person Y, they will be generally treated the same without influence from the employer.

It’s pretty clear from what’s been posted above that the requirement in question is for “normal colour vision”. The Isharia test is widely regarded as the best indicator of that, being highly accurate, and cheaply and easily administered. Hence it is incorporated in the pre employment medical, all elements of which must be passed.

There’s absolutely no reason to think the Equality Act is being “flirted with”, or that the TOC hasn’t discharged its responsibility, both to the regulator and under equalities legislation, by insisting on this test - which the industry regulator itself regards as the gold standard!

The simple fact is the same medical is given to all applicants. If you fail any aspect of it there’s no obligation on the TOC to spend money trying to get applicants through using non standard tests. Where would that end!? Would someone failing on hearing, but able to pass another non standard test, been able to challenge the toc under the equalities act? Of course they wouldn’t.

You seem unable to accept this, so presumably you have some evidence to suggest that something is amiss? Comparisons to other industries aren’t particularly relevant.

I notice you have applied for trainee driver roles in the past, so I assume this is something you are personally concerned about, given your keen interest in this topic. I would suggest you’re not going to get any confirmation either way on here. The best approach is just apply, go for the medical, and see how you get on.

 

[Stigy]

Because all employers have a responsibility to approach medicals and disabilities with fairness as to not disadvantage someone for reasons beyond their control, and there are very strict rules on how to do this. I don't know of any company that willingly flirts with the 2010 Equality Act during the employment process. The links posted all mention the equality act and the implications around conducting medicals whilst abiding by the act.

Having a vast supply of candidates absolutely won't be the reason they don't offer alternative testing, IF is it the case (we're still to factually determine). If companies or doctors are changing medical standards to suit themselves they'll be taking a fine line on discrimination as where does it stop? Should they also tell those with unacceptably high BMI's who happen to be bodybuilders that they refuse to use waist circumference rather than BMI..

It’s about a candidate’s fitness to carry out the job and the risks they pose. The Equality Act isn’t being breached for this very reason. If somebody had a BMI that was classed as too high for the company, they’d be able to use an element of discretion based on the applicant’s overall physical fitness. BMI is a general measurement and if we know that one can have a high BMI but be fitter than a lot of applicants, then the Doctor at the TOC most certainly will. One can also relatively easily bring them self to within the BMI range if it is just lack of exercise/diet that means they’re on the high side. You can’t do that with colour vision generally. Or not acceptably does anyway.

It’s different with eyesight and there are standards too meet, with very limited grey areas.

 

[Llanigraham]

Because all employers have a responsibility to approach medicals and disabilities with fairness as to not disadvantage someone for reasons beyond their control, and there are very strict rules on how to do this. I don't know of any company that willingly flirts with the 2010 Equality Act during the employment process. The links posted all mention the equality act and the implications around conducting medicals whilst abiding by the act.

Having a vast supply of candidates absolutely won't be the reason they don't offer alternative testing, IF is it the case (we're still to factually determine). If companies or doctors are changing medical standards to suit themselves they'll be taking a fine line on discrimination as where does it stop? Should they also tell those with unacceptably high BMI's who happen to be bodybuilders that they refuse to use waist circumference rather than BMI so they fail, as there are suitable numbers of skinny or fat-but-not-too-fat people waiting outside? This is the reason medicals, as far as I know, are always strict in the UK and if person X has the same condition as person Y, they will be generally treated the same without influence from the employer.

Somewhere there will be a guide for physicians who administer these tests, the one for aviators is available online and it's basically a flow chart of options should someone fail any test. It means no one physician can deviate from the standards and thus it is kept fair and consistent across the board. It is clear cut on it who gets what result.






Just to reiterate, we're not talking about doing this. We're talking about being offered, BY the medical practitioner, an alternative test if they believe your result on the Ishihara test isn't representative of your actual colour vision.

The Ishihara test is not conducted by a Doctor/physician. Mine were all done by the nurse doing my medicals.