DEAFNESS IN DRIVERS

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 147, 16 March 1940, Page 12

DEAFNESS IN DRIVERS

Disadvantages And Advantages TIME OF REACTION The effect of deafness on motor driving was the subject of an address by Mr. W. A. .Sutherland, secretary of the Automobile Association (Wellington). in connexion with Centennial Hearing Week last night. Mr. Sutherland pointed out that visible signs were of greater importance in driving than audible signs. A driver's eyesight must be keen and his reaction time must be short. To illustrate what was meant by reaction time, he commented that if a pedestrian were walking along the road at the rate of four m.p.h. and a hole opened up three feet in front of him ho would fall into it. Some might contend that that was an exaggeration or that an alert person would recover himself quickly enough to jump over the hole, but he would say definitely that the percentage of people who would succeed in avoiding .or jumping over the hole was exceedingly small. The time of reaction of the one who did would certainly be well above average.

The driver should be able to concentrate on his driving and not allow himself to be distracted by talk going on around him, or by the actions of others in the vehicle. It might be said ro bo an advantage for a person who was hard of hearing to be unable to hear conversations in the car. In a list of attributes of a good driver, Mr. Sutherland included an ability to judge speed and distance and what it meant in the conditions in which he found himself, and ability to assume that others on the highway would give, him reasonable co-operation, and readiness to share with others that co-operation which he expected from others, and a possession of those faculties which would enable him to anticipate any emergency. Speaking of pedestrians who were hard of hearing, Mr. Sutherland said that a large number of drivers, having sounded the horn of their car as it approached what they thought wars a dangerous corner, felt satisfied that they had done their duty and relied on the sound to clear the road, when actually, whether they .sounded the horn or not, they should be sufficiently alert to avoid any accidents. No driver, having sounded the horn, had ar right to assume that persons in the vicinity had heard him. and that, if they had heard him, they would anticipate his movements entirely. There was a duty on the person who heard a horn to take precautions, lint it did not preclude the driver from exercising as much care as if he 'had not sounded the horn.

Deafness varied in degree, and when licences to drive were granted each case had to be dealt with on its merits. The applicant was asked questions about his health and put to-tests, and the inspector must satisfy himself that the applicant was fit to drive, but the regulations were rightly framed to give the inspector some discretion. It should lie borne in mind that if an inspector, in exercising that discretion, declined to grant a licence he did so for the safety of traffic, which formed the background of all traffic problems and regulations. .