DEAF DRIVERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 65, 16 March 1940, Page 6

DEAF DRIVERS

JUDGMENT REQUIRED

TALK ON MOTORING

Because visible signs are more im--portant than audible signs. in motor* driving, persons who are hard of hearing • are not necessarily bad drivers, declared Mr. W. A. Sutherland, secretary of the Wellington Automobile Association, when addressing an assembly at Centennial • Hearing Week at .Wellington last evening.

Mr. Sutherland pointed out; that: visible signs were] of greater import-,<■; ance.in driving/than audible;-signs. AY 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 pi the rate of 4 m.p;h. and a hole opened up three feet in front of him he 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-flus 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 riot allow himself to be distracted by talk going on around him, or by the actions of others in the vehicle. It might be said to be an advantage for a.person who was hard of hearing to be unable .ta hear conversations in the car. In fcf, list of attributes of a good driver,:Mrx. Sutherland included ,an ability , toft judge speed and distance and what ite* meant in the conditions in which, Jhe^t found himself, and ability to assume that others on the. highway would* give reasonable co-operation", * .an*:" readiness to share with others that co-operation-which he expected "from, others, and a possession of those facul« ties 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 was'1 a dangerous corner, v 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 a 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, but it did not preclude the driver .from ing as much care* as if he . had '%ot sounded the horn. <

Deafness varied in degree,- and when licences to drive were granted each case had to be dealt with on,its merits. It should be 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.