Why not for a red light? When stopped for the infraction, Mr. Stray claimed that he saw all three lights (red, yellow and green) lit at the same time- not in succession as he told Ms. Matsukawa. If he saw something that wasn't there (all three lights at the same time) clearly there is something wrong with his vision and he is a danger to others on the road. At the same time, if all three lights were lit (they weren't) or if he just thought they were, a prudent driver would treat the intersection as a four-way stop and make sure they weren't pulling into the path of cross traffic with a green light. That calls Mr. Stray's judgement into question, and he is a potential danger.

I suppose another option is that Mr. Stray just blurted out the first story that came to mind to try to get out of a ticket he deserved. Now he's upset that the officer was true to his word when he told Mr. Stray he was submitting him for a re-exam.

And, just for the record, re-exams are NOT required for collisions, and anyone can submit someone for one. A good example would be the children of elderly parents about whose driving they are concerned.

Sounds like blatant age discrimination to me. There are so many young, arrogant "citizens" claiming to be the greatest thing since sliced bread...and that is a very specific nod to 'law enforcement'. It's not so much this gentlemen was stopped, it's the manner in which the situation was handled. Not being able to appeal the directive, which was given on a whim is the focus. It is discriminatory if an aged person is required to perform and prove themselves under the same circumstance a younger person, or a black person, or a gay person would just be given a ticket.

One thing we need is vision when driving. I find
that at 50, I too sometimes see the light far ahead on the bridge GREEN but the light BEFORE the bridge RED. The brain has to react fast.

I dont mind if I need to take a test for eyesight. Better than a blood alchol test or drugs.