Farsighted vs Nearsighted?

[intuition]

Hey, I have a fairly random question, and I wanted to check my understanding related to the subject.

Problem: I wear contacts, and recently I've been pretty frustrated that I can't read street signs half the time until it's too late to make a lane change.  Looking at a standard green and white street sign, I estimate that if I'm further than a third of a standard street block away from it, it's too blurry to read.

My understanding: Your eyes act as a flexible lense, so we can see things in a limited dynamic range (so there isn't only a single depth plane that is clear).  

If you wear corrective lenses, the focal length within your eye is modified: Convex lenses will bend parallel lines towards each other, and concave will do the opposite.  This implicitly adjusts the angle of incidence of rays when they enter your (cornea?).  

If this is correct, would it be appropriate for me to request that my optometrist give me a contacts prescription that would make me slightly far sighted, and a glasses prescription to fix that farsightedness?  Ideally, I don't want to be so farsighted that I can't read my speedometer, but I am kind of tired of walking around a grocery store and seeing things as being blurry in the distance.

Thanks for the advice!

[intuition]

Thanks for the response!  I don't mean any disrespect by pushing further on this, but I am genuinely curious as to why my crazy idea is flawed :)

I guess I'm confused because I'm trying to logic my way through the concept.  I've come up with this scenario and based on my (admittedly) limited knowledge of waves and optics, it seems to work.  I guess my big question is where does it break down?  Here it is:

If I were to replace my glasses with a refracting telescope, I would be able to see fairly clearly at a distance.  This is because the focal length of a refracting telescope is very long.  If I were to place a book in front of that telescope, it would both be unreadable and upside down.  

Likewise, if I were to replace my the glasses with microscopes, distant objects would be impossible to discern.  Once again it would be impossible to read a book.

If I were to ignore the lost field of vision due to the extreme nature of the example, would I not be able to configure the two lenses (telescope and microscope) such that 20/20 vision could be experienced at the second lens? (The microscope).  I realize that in this example the microscope would have to be at quite a distance.

Scaling down this extreme example, it makes sense to me that a multi-lens structure of glasses/contacts/eye-lens could function similarly, with much smaller focal lengths.

I'm not sure if my blurred vision at a distance is due to aberrations, but even if it is, wouldn't I be able to sacrifice some peripheral vision for the ability to see things more clearly at meaningful distances?

[Ray T Oyakawa, MD]

It is not as simple as you describe.  Blurred distance vision has many causes besides myopia.

Dr. O.

[JennyP890]

I have the same problem; I can't see street signs until I'm already on it, and it does get irritating.  I suggest you see your eye doctor and update your eye exam, & maybe he'll prescribe you something stronger.