MOTOR DRIVERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26543, 19 August 1947, Page 6

MOTOR DRIVERS

EXAMINATION BY SPECIAL PANEL CITY COUNCIL DIVIDED Details of the amendment to the Motor Drivers Regulations were explained in the report of the General Committee submitted to a meeting of the City Council last night, but a recommendation, “ that applications be invited from registered medical practitioners and opticians for appointment to a medical panel for the examination of drivers in the Dunedin district,” was referred back to the committee for further consideration. It was stated in the committee’s report that “provision was made in the amended regulations for the setting up by local authorities, desirous of doing so, of a panel of medical practitioners and opticians for the examination of drivers of public vehicles, drivers over 70 years of age, etc.” “ What does the ‘ etc.’ mean? ” asked Cr Taverner. Cr Jolly, chairman of the General Committee: It is a typing error. It should not be there at all. Cr Taverner: It is not at all clear to what drivers the recommendation refers. Are the regulations mandatory? Cr Jolly: Yes. “Are we desirous of setting up this suggested panel? ” asked Cr Connolly, M.P. “I am opposed to the panel.” Cr McMillan contended that the family practitioner was best able to judge whether a man over the age of 70 was fit to drive a motor vehicle. Some doctors’ certificates had not been satisfactory in the past, said Cr Ireland. The public safety had to be a principal consideration. He proposed that the committee’s recommendation be referred back to the committee for further consideration. , Cr Hudson, M.P., seconded the motion. ~, . “In fairness to all other users of the road, drivers over the age of 70 should receive a thorough medical examination,” said Cr Wright. “The committee’s recommendation should be adopted.” ~ , . ~ Replying, Cr Jolly said that there was too much sentiment attached to the examination of a man by his family doctor. The committee had proof of doctors giving dertificates over the telephone. , , The motion to refer the recommendation back to the committee was carried. the voting being:—For: Crs Ireland, Hudson. Connelly, Connolly, Taverner, Blain, McMillan, and Walls. Against,: The Mayor. Mr Cameron, and Crs Jolly. Wright, Barr, and McCrae.