iw/hoperation of motor vehicles^

government BY DISABLED PERSONS

Storage ■ ■ - - - .. ......

H E A R I N G

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMM ITTEE ON

INTE RS TA TE AND FO RE IGN COMME RCE 

SBo HOUSE OE RE PR ES EN TA TI VE S

EIGH TY -EIG HT H CONG RESS

E rR FIR ST SESSION

<

“ ~ ' a

0 N

I — g H.R. 827

—s. A BIL L TO AMEND THE INTE RSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO

-----< PROV IDE THAT DISABLED PERSONS MEETING CERTAIN

REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT BE PROH IBITED FROM OPERATING MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTE RSTATE OR FOREIGN 

COMMERCE UNDER CERTAIN RULES AND REGULATIONS 

OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

MAY 14, 1963

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Interstate and Fore ign Commerce

10-733

U S. GOVERNM ENT PR IN TING OF FICE 

WASH INGT ON : 1903
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

OREN HARRI S, A rk an sa s, Chairman

JO HN BELL W IL LI AM S, M issis sip pi

KENNETH A. RO BE RT S, Alaba ma

HA RL EY O. ST AG GE RS , W es t V irgi ni a

W ALT ER RO GE RS , Tex as

SA MU EL N. FR IE D E L , M ar yl an d

TO RB ER T H. MACDO NAL D, M as sa ch us et ts

GE OR GE M. RH OD ES , Pen ns ylv an ia

JO HN JARM AN , Ok laho ma

LE O W. O’BRIE N, New Yo rk

JO HN E. MOSS, C al if or ni a

JO HN D. DIN GEL L, Michiga n

PA UL G. RO GE RS , Flo rida

ROBER T W. H EM PH IL L, Sou th Car ol in a

DAN RO ST EN KOW SK I, Il lino is

JA M ES C. HE AL EY , New York

HO RA CE R. KO RNEGAY, N or th C ar ol in a

W. R. HU LL , J r., M isso uri

G IL L IS W. LON G, L ou isia na

LIO N EL VAN DEER LI N, C al if orn ia

W. E. Wil li am so n, Clerk

Ken neth J. P ain te r, Assistan t Clerk

Andrew Ste ve nson

K drt Borchar dt

JO HN B. BE NNET T, Michiga n 

W IL LI AM L. SP RIN GER , Il lino is 

PA UL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio 

J. AR TH UR YOUNGER, C al ifor ni a 

MI LT ON W. GL EN N, New Je rs ey 

SA MU EL L. DE VI NE , Ohio 

AN CH ER NEL SE N, M in ne so ta 

HAST IN GS K EIT H , M as sa ch us et ts 

W IL LA RD S. CU RT IN , Pen ns yl va ni a 

AB NE R W. SIBA L, Con ne ct icut 

GL EN N CU NN INGH AM , N eb ra sk a 

JA M ES T. BR OY HI LL , N ort h Car ol in a 

DO NA LD G. BROTZM AN , Co lorado

Professional Staff

George W. P erry

J am es M. Menge r, Jr .

Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics

JO HN BELL W IL LI AM S, M ississ ippi, Chairman

SA MUE L N. FR IE D E L , M ar yl an d W IL LI AM L. SP RIN GER , Illino is

TO RB ER T H. MACDO NAL D, M as sa ch us et ts SA MU EL L. DE VIN E, Ohio 

JO H N JA RM AN , Oklah om a AB NE R W. SIBA L, Con ne ct ic ut

RO BE RT W. H EM PH IL L, Sou th Car ol in a
C O N T E N T S

Page

Tex t of H.R. 827_________________________________________________ 1

Rep ort of—

Bureau of the Budget________________________________________

—< t cm

Hea lth, Education, and Welfare Department_____________________

 CO

Interstate Commerce Commission_______________________________

Statement of—

Cox, Ernest G., Chief, Section of Motor C arrier Safety, In terstate Commerce Commission__________________________________________ 5

Goff, Hon. Abe McGregor, Vice Chairm an, Interstate Commerce Commission___________________________________________________ 5

Neeley, J. R., on behalf of National Association of Motor Bus 

Owners___________________________________________________ 23

Rennolds, B. A., on behalf of National Association of Motor Bus

Owners____________________________________________________ 34

Additional information submitted for the record by—

National Association of Motor Bus Owners, statem ent on handicapped

drive rs ____________________________________________________ 26

Pre sident’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, letter

from Melvin J. Maas, Chairman______________________________ 33

Young, Philip W., lett er from___________________________________ 34

h i

OPE RAT ION OF MOTOR VEHIC LES BY DIS ABLED

PERSONS

TUESD AY, M AY 14, 19 63

H ouse of R epr ese ntatives,

Subcom mittee on T ranspor tation and Aeronautic s

of th e Com mittee on I nter stat e and F oreign Comm erce,

Washing ton, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 10 :50 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, 

Longworth Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. W illiam s. Our bill for consideration today is H.R. 827, which 

would amend the Interstate Commerce Act so as to permit certain disabled persons to operate motor vehicles in interstate commerce.

(H.R. 827 along with agency reports follow:)

[H.R. 827, 8 8th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide th at disabled persons meeting 

certain requirements may not be prohibited from operating motor vehicles in interstate 

or foreign commerce under certain rules and regu latio ns of the Interstate Commerce 

Commission

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That subparagraph (1) of section 

204(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 304) is amended by inserting 

immediately before the period at the end thereof the following: “ ; except tha t 

no individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or loss of hearing shall be prohibited from operating any motor vehicle 

in interstate or foreign commerce under any rule or regulation of the Commission prescribed under this subparagraph or subparagraph (2), (3), or 

(3a) of this subsection if such individual has been examined by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy admitted to the practice of medicine or osteopathy in a State 

and such doctor determines tha t such loss or impairment will not prevent such 

individual from safely operating such vehicle”.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget, 

Washington, D.C., May 14, 1963.

Hon. Orex Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request of February 19, 1963, 

for a report on H.R. 827, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide t hat disabled persons meeting certain requirements may not be prohibited 

from operating motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce under certain 

rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

We are completely in accord with the objective of the bill to allow disabled 

individuals to operate motor vehicles in interstate commerce to the maximum 

extent consistent with safety.
2 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

However, the Interst ate Commerce Commission now has the responsibility for 

setting standard s for drivers to assure the safe operation of motor vehicles. 

We are certain th at whenever it is establish ed th at cer tain disabled drivers can 

safely operate motor vehicles, the Commission will revise its standard s accordingly. In general, we do not believe it wise to enact legislation requiring a 

regu latory agency to take a specific action affecting safety which is already 

within that agency’s authority, responsibility, and expert knowledge.

For these reasons, we cannot recommend favorable consideration of H.R. 827. 

Sincerely yours,

Phillip S. Hughes.

Ass ista nt Director for Legislative Reference.

Depa rtme nt of H ea lt h, E ducatio n, and Welfare,

Washington, D.C., May 1-b, 1963. Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on In ter sta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This lette r is in response to your request of Feb ruary 

19, 1963, for a report on H.R. 827. a bill to amend the Interst ate Commerce 

Act to provide th at disabled persons meeting certain requirements may not 

be prohibited from operatin g motor vehicles in inters tate or foreign commerce 

und er certain rules and regulations of the Interst ate Commerce Commission. 

It is identical with H.R. 4273, introduced in the 87th Congress.

The bill would withdraw the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission 

to proh ibit a person from operating a motor vehicle in inter sta te commerce on 

the ground that he has lost a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or suffers loss or imp airment of hearing, provided th at a licensed physician or osteopath certifies that 

the loss or impairment “will not prevent such individual from safely operating 

such vehicle.” The effect of the hill would be to repeal th at portion of regulation 191.2 (49 C.F.R.), of the Commission, which now contains an absolute 

prohibition aga inst the operation of such motor carriers by such disabled 

persons.

We ar e in accord with the objective of th e hill.

It is our understanding th at the Commission adopted this prohibitio n in 

1940. Since that time advances in design of prostheses, and training of the 

disabled in their use, have enabled many amputees to compensate for their 

disability with sufficient adequacy to perm it them to operate commercial carriers with safety. There is a persuasive body of medical opinion sub stantiating 

this view.

In this regard, it is germane that the str ict medical standard s applied by 

the Federal Aviation Agency to applicants for pilot licenses do not contain a 

blanke t restriction of the sor t imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The bill is defective in one respect, however. It would app arently make binding on the Interst ate Commerce Commission the d etermination of any physician 

or osteopath selected by the disabled person that th e loss or impa irment referred 

to would not prevent th at person from safely operating a vehicle. Such a practition er’s determination is not taken as conclusive as to the app lica nt’s ability to 

driv e safely in the case of nonamputees. In our view, responsibility for this 

determination should lie with a public body, the Commission, charged by law 

with the duty to protect the public in this respect. This is not to say th at the 

Commission should not have discretion to utilize the services of private practitioners with in the framework of an appropriate procedure estab lished by it. 

Such a procedure is exemplified by the medical qualification of pilot applicants 

by the Federal Aviation Agency, which uses some 6.000 private physicians on 

call thro ughout the country to make the required exam inations in accordance 

with physical standa rds prescribed by the agency.

We would, therefore, recommend th at the Commission license any individual 

who is able to meet reasonable performance stan dards, to be established by the 

Commission, th at would assure th at his disability will not prevent him from 

safe lv operatin g a motor vehicle. If this cann ot be done adm inistratively, we 

would recommend enactment of leigslation to this end.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the 

presentation of this report from the stan dpo int of the administration’s program. 

Sincerely,

Ant ho ny J . Celebrezze, Secretary.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 3

I nters ta te Com mer ce Co m m is sio n ,

Offic e of t h e Ch a ir m a n , 

Washington, D.C., May 13, 1963.

Hon. Ore n H arris ,

Chairman, Committee on Inters tate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r Ch a ir m a n H arr is : This is in response to your letter of Feb rua ry 19, 

1963, requestin g comments on a bill, H.R. 827, introduce d by Congressman Williams, to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide th at disabled persons 

meeting certain requirements may not be prohibited from operating motor 

vehicles in int ers tat e or foreig n commerce under certain rules and regulations 

of the In terstate Commerce Commission. This matter has been considered 

by the Commission and I am authorized to subm it the following comments 

in its be ha lf:

H.R. 827 would amend section 204(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 

U.S.C. 30 4(a)) which, among other things, authorizes the Commission to prescribe reasonable requirements with respect to the qualifications of employees of 

for hire and private motor carriers operatin g in interst ate commerce. The bill 

would provide, in effect, th at the rules and regu lations so prescribed shall not 

prohibit any individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, 

or impairm ent or loss of hearing from operatin g any motor vehicle if such loss 

or impairm ent is determined by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy 

to be of a type which “will not prevent such individual from safely operatin g 

such vehicle.”

The Commission first prescribed minimum qualifications of drivers in July 

1937. These initial regulations, general in scope, disqualified from driving in 

int ersta te commerce individuals who faile d to possess “adeq uate hea ring” or 

who had incurred a “physical deformity or loss of limb likely to interfere with 

safe driving.” As amended in 1940, and again in 1952, these minimum qualifications were changed so a s to specifically disqu alify as drivers individuals whose 

hea ring is “less than 10/20 in the better ear, for conversation al tones, without 

a hea ring aid ” or who had suffered the loss of a “foot, leg, hand, or arm .” 

So revised, these regulations rema in in effect today.

Over the years the Commission has considered its sta tut ory respo nsibility 

to establish physical and competence qualifications of driv ers as a ma tte r of 

paramoun t importance. This responsibility has become even more vital because 

of the major and relatively recent changes in commercial vehicle operation s— 

changes which have resulte d in greatly increased demands upon the physical 

stamina of drivers. Inclu ded among these changes are the development of 

hea vier and larger vehicles, gre ate r powered engines, complicated gears and 

other special devices, heavier loads, and higher speeds. These “behemoths of 

the highw ays,” which are used to tra nsport all kinds of commodities, including 

truckload s of explosives and other dangerous articles, are operated for prolonged periods over extensive distances in many types of ter rain in all seasons 

of the year, regardless of weather conditions. It is clear, therefore, th at due 

consideratio n of public safety requires th at driver qualifications be maintained 

at the very highest level.

In this connection, it is significant th at the rap id development of larger, 

more powerful tra ctor-tr ail er units has been para lleled by a phenomenal increase in the use of highw ays by commercial vehicles of all kinds. In 1952, for 

example, at least 917,534 motor vehicles were being operated in inter sta te commerce by private and for hire car riers subject to the Commission’s safety regulations. By 1961, this figure mounted to an estimated 1.695,589 vehicles. In 

addition, we observe th at total motor vehicle reg istr ations (including trucks, 

buses, and automobiles) in 1937 amounted to 29.706,158. By 1952 this figure 

had risen to 52,651,835, and by 1961 it was 75,846.532.

Continued increases in the number of vehicles, both private and commercial, 

using our highw ays man ifestly results in increased exposure to accident sit uatio ns and, in turn, this circu mstance requires continued maintenance of the 

utmost in safe ty stan dards. In particular, the Commission is concerned with 

the number and severity of accidents caused by loss of control of commercial 

vehicles on hills and curves. Such accidents occur on inter sta te movements 

notwithstand ing the fac t th at drivers involved are requ ired to meet present 

physical standa rds.

It is noteworthy that the Preside nt personally has urged renewed efforts 

to reduce the appalling highw ay dea th toll. His public statem ent of April 9,
4 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE S BY DISABLED PERSONS

1963, was prompted by the approximately 41,000 deaths due to highway accidents in 1962.

In presc ribing regulations relating to the qualifications of drivers of intersta te commercial vehicles, the Commission must give prim ary and overriding 

consideration to the safety of the public, including the safe ty of the drivers 

themselves. At the same time, and in order to avoid imposing personal hardship through unnecessary disqualific ation of driv ers for physical reasons, we 

have earnestly endeavored to keep abrea st of all medical and technological 

developments which would provide a basis for reevaluation of our regulations.

In this connection, the Commission (division 5) had occasion to consider a 

proposed modification respecting amputee drivers in 1949. See “Qualifications 

of Employees and Safety of Operations” (49 M.C.C. 633). In that proceeding, 

a number of organizations inte rested in assisting the physically handicapped, 

including governmental agencies such as the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation 

of the Federal Security Agency and the Pre sident’s Committee of the Natio nal 

Employ-the-Handicapped Week, urged the Commission to amend the rule so 

as to permit an amputee to dem onstrate (by an examination promulgated 

join tly by the Commission and various other Federal and Sta te agencies and 

private organiza tions) whether he possessed the requisite mental and physical 

ability to perform the duties of a driver in a safe manner. Upon careful conside ration of the record developed at a public hearing, the Commission concluded th at a change in the rule was not then shown to be warranted. The 

following extract from the concluding paragr aph s of the division’s report appears to be applicable toda y:

“The lack of competent evidence which would establish th at the prosthetic 

devices now available to amputees are sufficiently durable to withstand the 

str ain of driving motor vehicles, often und er unfavorable conditions, or to 

perform the strenuous duties of drivers as outlined above, or are sufficiently 

flexible to perm it the manipulation of the various buttons, levers, or other controls, leaves us no choice but to find th at the proponents of a change have failed 

to prove th at amputees are possessed of the physical ability necessary to drive 

vehicles in inter sta te or foreign commerce without being an actual or a potentia l haz ard to themselves or to others. We have seen that all such devices are 

subject to cer tain limitations which, in our opinion, are such as to require a 

finding th at they cann ot properly be considered as adeq uate sub stitutes for 

na tural limbs for the purpose of driving the various types of motor vehicles 

opera ted und er our jurisdiction. Obviously a failure of prosthesis while an 

amputee was driving might easily lead to an accident resulting in death or 

inju ry, not only to the driver, but to anyone else who might be at that 

particular place a t the time of the failure.”

The “strenuous duties of drivers” referred to in the above-quoted language 

includes, for example, the operation of transmissions which requ ire seven gear 

changes before a speed of 40 miles per hour is atta ined. The dex terity required to perform this and sim ilar complex fun ctions1

 is a matt er of extrem e 

importance in our determination of minimum physical standard s for commercial drivers.

We are aware, however, of researc h work in this are a being conducted by 

the Havard School of Public Health under the sponsorship of the Office of 

Vocational Rehabilitation of the Dep artm ent of Health, Education, and Welfare. When the results of this study, because of the complexities involved, 

are made available to us, careful examination of the findings and recommendations will be made to determine if they furnish a sufficient basis for a modification of our regulations.

With respect to the minimum hearing requirements, we are not awa re of 

any information which would warrant a modification of the present standard. 

To sub stitute for such a specific sta ndard a doctor’s opinion of the adequacy 

of a driver ’s hea ring would, in our view, be an unw arranted relaxation of the 

rules. The average physician could not be expected to be fam ilia r with the 

physical conditions—and in particular the background noises—attendant upon 

such commercial vehicle operations. Two examples which illustra te the need 

for a specified measure of hea ring ar e: (1) the emergency siren of an ambu1

 Examples of othe r functions which (a t lea st in emergencies or durin g adverse weather 

conditions) require a high degree of dex terity ar e: (1) changing truck tires or insta lling 

tire chains, (2) coupling and uncoupling air system hoses and electrical connections, and 

(3) operatin g a fire extinguisher at poin ts on the vehicles which are not easily accessible.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 5

lance or fire engine warning all other vehicles on the road to clear the wa y; 

and (2) rail-highway grade crossings where in the last few years a number 

of very serious accidents have occurred in which the driver of a commercial 

vehicle th at had collided with a trai n claimed he had not heard the locomotive 

whistle. In view of these circumstances, we are unable to favor or support H.R. 827. 

Under this bill the ultimate decision as to the ability of an amputee or individual with subnormal hearing to safely operate heavy-duty tractor-trailer 

units over long distances would be made by a doctor or osteopath. We doubt 

tha t many of these are qualified by experience or training properly to evaluate 

(1) the unusual technological and operational complexities involved in driving 

such vehicles or (2) the effect of their case-by-case decisions in terms of the 

overall public interest. Moreover, it appears reasonable to assume tha t the 

judgment of individual doctors will differ in varying degrees.

Furthermore, in all fairness we feel that mere approval by a doctor of 

medicine or osteopathy as proposed by the bill would be inadequate to protect 

the public interest in safe operations on highways.

Finally, we would like to state tha t we recognize and are in sympathy with 

the humanitarian purposes which motivated this bill, and regret that we are 

unable to support it.

Sincerely yours,

Laurence K. Walbath, Chairm an.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Goff, I believe you are prepared to testify on 

th is; are you not ?

STATEMENT OF HON. ABE McGREGOR GOFF, VICE CHAIRMAN,

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY ERNEST G. COX, CHIE F, SECTION OF MOTOR

CARRIER SAFETY

Mr. Goff. Yes, I am, sir. Now, Mr. Chairm an and gentlemen of 

the committee, I should mention that I have with me today Director 

Bertram E. Stilwell, of the Bureau of Operating Rights, who sat with 

me a few minutes a go; and on my left is Mr. Ernest G. Cox, Chief of 

our Section of Motor Carrier Safety.

We also have here Robert T. Wallace, legislative counsel; Sam 

Langerman, a legislative attorney. And I have here Milton G. 

Bilodeau from my office. I thought it would do him good to come 

up and listen to a hearing.

Speaking for the Commission now on H.R. 827: Section 204(a) 

of the Interstate Commerce Act, among other things, authorizes the 

Commission to prescribe reasonable requirements with respect to the 

qualifications of employees of for-hire and private motor carriers 

operating in Interstate Commerce.

H.R. 827 would amend this section to provide, in effect, t hat the 

rules and regulations prescribed by the Commission thereunder 

shall not prohibit any individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, 

leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or loss of hearing from operating 

any motor vehicle if a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy determines that his loss or impairment is not of a type which will prevent 

him from safely operating such vehicle.

The Commission first prescribed minimum qualifications of drivers 

in July 1937. These initial regulations, which were general in scope, 

disqualified individuals who failed to possess “adequate hearing” 

or who had incurred a “physical deformity or loss of limb likely to 

interfere with safe driving.”

20- 73 3— 64 -2
6 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

As amended in 1940, and again in 1952, they specifically disqualified individuals whose hearing was “less than 10/20 in the better 

ear for conversational tones, without a hearing aid'5

 or who had 

suffered the loss of a “foot, leg, hand, or arm.”

So revised, these minimum qualifications remain in effect today.

The Commission has always considered its statutory responsibility 

to establish physical and competence qualifications of drivers as a 

matter of paramount importance.

Its responsibility has become even more vital in recent years because of major changes which have occurred in commercial vehicle 

operations—changes which have resulted in greatly increased demands upon the physical stamina of drivers.

Included among these changes are the development of heavier and 

larger vehicles, greater powered engines, complicated gears and 

other special devices, heavier loads, and higher speeds.

These “behemoths of the highways” are used to transport all kinds 

of commodities, including truckloads of explosives, flammables, and 

other dangerous articles, and are operated for prolonged periods 

over extensive distances in many types of te rrain in all seasons of the 

year, regardless of weather conditions.

Under these circumstances it is clear tha t driver qualifications must 

be maintained at the very highest level in order to safeguard the 

public.

I emphasize that the developments I have just mentioned have not 

occurred while highway traffic remained static. On the contrary, 

they have coincided with a tremendous increase in the use of highways by commercial vehicles of all kinds.

In 1952, for example, approximately 917,000 motor vehicles were 

being operated by private and for-hire carriers subject to the Commission’s safety regulations.

By 1961, this figure had mounted to nearly 1.7 million vehicles. 

In addition, I should mention tha t total motor vehicle registrations 

for trucks, buses, and automobiles rose from approximately 52,650,- 

000 in 1952 to almost 75,900,000 in 1961.

This rapid growth in the number of vehicles, both private and 

commercial, using our highways has natu rally increased accident 

potentialities.

I invite your attention, in this regard, to the Commission’s deep 

concern over the number and severity of accidents caused by commercial drivers losing control of their vehicles on hills and curves. 

Such accidents have occurred with marked frequency on interstate 

movements notwithstanding the present physical standards.

I believe it is also worthy of note tha t the President personally 

has urged renewed efforts to reduce the appalling highway accident 

toll. His public statement of April 9, 1963, was prompted by the 

approximately 41,000 deaths due to highway accidents in 1962.

In prescribing regulations relating to the qualifications of drivers 

of interstate commercial vehicles, the Commission must give primary 

and overriding consideration to the safety of the public, including 

the safety of the drivers themselves.

At the same time, and in order to avoid imposing personal hardship through unnecessary physical disqualifications, we have earnestly endeavored to keep abreast of all medical and technological
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 7

developments which would provide a basis for reevaluation of our 

regulations.

In this connection, the Commission (division 5) had occasion to 

consider a proposed modification respecting, amputee drivers in 1949. 

See “Qualifications of Employees and Safety of Operations” (49 

M.C.C. 663).

In tha t proceeding, a number of organizations interested in assisting the physically handicapped urged the Commission to amend the 

regulations so as to permit an amputee to demonstrate whether heu

possessed the requisite mental and physical ability to perform the’ 

duties of a driver in a safe manner.

Upon careful consideration of the record developed at a public 

hearing, the Commission concluded tha t a change in the rule was 

not then shown to be warranted.

I would like to quote from the closing p aragraphs of the division’s 

report since the conclusions there expressed appear to be applicable 

toda y:

The lack of competent evidence which would establish tha t the prosthetic 

devices now available to amputees are sufficiently durable to withstand the 

strain of driving motor vehicles, often under unfavorable conditions, or to perform the strenuous duties of drivers as outlined above, or are sufficiently 

flexible to permit the manipulation of the various buttons, levers, or other 

controls, leaves us no choice but to find that the proponents of a change have 

failed to prove that amputees are possessed of the physical ability necessary 

to drive vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce without being an actual or 

a potential hazard to themselves or to others.

We have seen tha t all such devices are subject to certain limitations which, 

in our opinion, are such as to require a finding that they cannot properly be 

considered as adequate substitutes for natu ral limbs for the purpose of driving 

the various types of motor vehicles operated under our jurisdiction.

Obviously a failure of prosthesis while an amputee was driving might easily 

lead to an accident resulting in death or injury, not only to the driver, but to 

anyone else who might be at tha t particular place at the time of the failure.

I wish to emphasize the meaning of the phrase “strenuous duties of 

drivers.” It means, for example, tha t a drive r must shift gears at 

least seven times before a speed of 40 miles per hour can be attained 

with commonly used transmissions—automatic transmissions are almost nonexistent in the larg er commercial vehicles.

It means also tha t at least in an emergency or during adverse 

weather conditions, a driver must perform certain duties requiring a 

high degree of physical agility. Some of these duties involve changing tires or installing snow chains, coupling and uncoupling air 

system hoses and electrical connections, and operating a fire extin ­

guisher at points on the vehicle which are not easily accessible.

The dexterity required to perform these and similar strenuous 

activities is a matter of extreme importance in our determination of 

minimum physical standards for commercial drivers.

We are aware, however, of research work in this area being conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health under the sponsorship of the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare.

When the results of th is study are made available to us, be assured 

tha t careful and sympathetic examination of the findings will be 

made. We hope these can afford a sound basis for modifying our 

regulations.
8 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

I should mention here tha t an important part of this bill is that 

it takes away the discretion tha t the Congress has imposed upon 

the Commission for more than 25 years. It is the intention of 

the bill, as I understand it, tha t a certificate from a doctor or an 

osteopath, would be considered as qualifying a driver as far as the 

loss of a limb or as f ar as their hearing is concerned.

Now with respect to the minimum hearing requirements, we are not 

aware of any information which would warrant a modification of the 

present standard.

To substitute for such a specific standard a doctor’s opinion of the 

adequacy of a driver’s hearing would, in our view, be an unwarranted 

relaxation of the rules. The average physician could not be expected 

to be familiar with the physical conditions—and in particular the 

background noises—attendant upon such commercial vehicle operations. And I might mention here tha t we have had a lot of crossing accidents with trains.

There are some indications in our investigations of these accidents 

tha t the driver just didn’t hear the whistle of the train. There are 

also at times serious accidents where a siren from a firefighting 

vehicle or ambulance was not heard, and we feel tha t the ability to 

distinguish sounds when there are conflicting noises is a very important qualification in such an emergency.

Now let me provide two illustrations of occasions when the need 

for a specified measure of hearing is crucial. The first involves 

emergency sirens of police cars, ambulances, or fire engines which I 

just mentioned, warning all other vehicles on the road to clear the 

way.

The second relates to rail-highway grade crossings where, as I have 

also mentioned, many very serious accidents have occurred in the 

last few years in which the drive r of a commercial vehicle tha t had 

collided with a train claimed he had not heard the locomotive whistle.

I invite the subcommittee’s attention at this time to an often overlooked fact. The Commission’s prescription of minimum driver 

(qualifications is not generally applicable to persons employed wholly 

in local operations—even though interstate in nature—within a 

municipality or the commercial zone thereof.

This is an area in which commercial firms ordinarily operate small 

vehicles. As a result, competent persons who do not qualify under 

present regulations for driving in intercity service could be employed 

in such local service where the hazards to them and the general 

public are very much less than in long distance, high speed operations.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unahle to favor or support H.R. 827. We note, in particular, tha t under this bill the ultimate decision as to the ability of an amputee or individual with subnormal hearing to safely operate heavy-duty tractor-trailer units 

over long distances would be made by a doctor of medicine or 

osteopathy.

We doubt that many of them are qualified by experience or training 

properly to evaluate (1) the unusual technological and operational 

complexities involved in driving such vehicles or (2) the effect of 

the ir individual and independently arrived at decision in terms of the 

overall public interest.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 9

Moreover, it appears reasonable to assume tha t the judgment of 

individual doctors will differ in varying degrees. Under these circumstances, and in all fairness, we feel that mere approval by a doctor 

of medicine or osteopathy as proposed by the bill would not adequately protect the public interest in safe operations on highways.

For the record, however, please be assured tha t we recognize and 

are in sympathy with the humanitarian purposes which motivated 

this bill, and regret that we are unable to support it.

I might say here th at it is particularly unfortunate in my situation 

to have to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, because this is your bill. 

I will tell the rest of you th at I entered the Congress a t the same time 

tha t your chairman did, some 17 years ago and knew him very well 

at t hat time.

I know tha t he is, himself, an amputee and I know the circumstances under which tha t amputation was suffered. He was in the 

military service and I hope all of you know the story, but of the five 

occupants of his military plane he is the only one to escape alive.

It makes it pretty hard for me to come up here and oppose a bill 

which has been submitted by him.

When we started on this I went into it rath er carefully because I 

thought it was Williams’ bill, because of my own admiration and affection for him. If there was any possibility of relaxation and still 

protecting the interest of the public, I was inclined to be sympathetic 

to the bill. But, Mr. Chairman, after going into it thoroughly I find 

tha t in the absence of better evidence than we now have, I just donV 

feel that we can safely approve the bill.

Now the other p art is tha t Chairman W alra th-----

Mr. Williams. At tha t point let me express the appreciation to 

you for your personal comments. However, I hope you will not consider this is a personal matter. I think probably I would be here 

regardless of whether I were disabled or not to sponsor some legislation by which a disabled person might be certificated to operate a 

motor vehicle in interstate commerce.

That does not necessarily follow I endorse all provisions of the 

bill. Actually, the bill was introduced two or three Congresses ago 

at the request of General Maas, whom you know very well, of the 

President’s Committee on the Handicapped. This is not a personal matter with me by any means.

Mr. Goff. I knew it would not be. Yet, I felt some diffidence 

about it. You mentioned General Maas. He also served in this 

House. He was a Marine colonel now a retired major general, who 

saw a lot of combat in World War II. I know his feeling for the 

handicapped and I know your feeling for them. I am ju st glad tha t 

Maas is not here to hear me because he has been one of the proponents of this relaxation of our regulations.

It is just one of those situations where we have responsibility in 

regard to safety and I know you don’t take any personal feeling 

in it and yet you do have a deep sympathy, just as Maas does for 

those who have had some physical handicap.

Mr. Williams. I believe you wanted to cover one other point 

when I interrupted you.

Mr. Goff. Yes. Chairman Walrath regrets he could not come up 

here. He left this morning on a trip , on official business out West.
10 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

I feel I should mention he would have been here had he been in 

the city.

Mr. Williams. Are there any questions of Mr. Goff?

Mr. Hemphill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to congratulate you on your statement, Mr. Goff. In 

another hearing before this committee on the minimum rate bill,

I have questioned continuously witnesses for certain parts of the 

transportation industry on the practice and problem of excessive 

speed.

As a prosecuting attorney, I learned tha t speed is the greatest cause 

of highway and traffic accidents and deaths. I had thought that 

drinking was. It has been distressing to me to see so many large 

vehicles speeding on the highways. I have no antipathy for them. 

It is just tha t I go from here to Quantico frequently and I obey the 

speed law and the passenger buses all pass me.

I wonder in th at field what suggestions you may have to strengthen 

your hand in the matter? I am all for you in trying to promote the 

safety of these interstate vehicles. I think you are doing a good 

job.

They say it does not happen, tha t they have governors and everything else but you ride along in a car and it does happen to me. 

When one passes me and my car is going 60, whatever the speed limit 

is, I know they must be exceeding it. I)o you have any suggestions?

I am very much concerned about it.

I th ink it is something we all should be concerned about.

Air. Goff. Mr. Hemphill, I appreciate that statement. I have with 

me our real expert on safety. Air. Ernest G. Cox has been with the 

Commission for 24 years. lie was one of the first inspectors employed by the Commission fo r safety inspections out in the field. He 

has been in safety work with motor vehicles for 41 years. He is 

here and I think tha t you ought to have the opportunity to have 

an answer from him on some of these questions.

Air. Hemphill. Thank you.

Air. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Air. Hemphill, and members of the committee, my own personal judgment is th at a very real question exists 

with respect to the attainment and maintenance of present-day 

speeds, especially in view of the very considerable increase in the size 

and the weight of these vehicles.

Now, this is not a simple matter to demonstrate statistically. In 

fact, on the major toll roads of the country where an exact record is 

kept of the miles operated by vehicles of different classes and where, 

of course, higher speeds are maintained, and properly so, the lowest 

facility rates have prevailed for quite some time.

Air. Hemphill. May I interrupt you there?

Air. Cox. Yes, sir.

Air. H emphill. But you have an advantage there in the fact that 

the toll roads and the superhighways are constructed to accommodate 

the faster traffic.

Air. Cox. You are quite right.

Air. Hemphill. Let me inject something else about buses. I am 

convinced that the buses have some sort of immunity. They do not 

run at 70 and 75, they run at 90, it seems.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 11

Mr. Cox. You have voiced precisely the opinion tha t was stated 

to me by a member of our own Commission from his return on a 

trip to the West some months ago.

I come now to a very im portant point and I think this is extremely 

important from the standpoint of the Commission and also from the 

standpoint of the Congress.

In its 69th annual repo rt to Congress, the Commission made this 

stateme nt:

Our function in the prevention of highway commercial vehicle accid ents is a 

vital one. It is unique.

Then this statement app ears:

Our function complements but it does not duplicate the activities of the 

Sta tes in this field.

The report goes on at page 50 to say t h at: our function has to do 

with the maintenance of basic accident prevention because factors 

such as qualifications of drivers, maximum hours of service, design 

and maintenance standards for vehicles, and we constantly have emphasized, sir, tha t the Commission is not empowered and it does not 

have the facilities with which to do the job tha t is properly tha t of 

State authorities.

I think this is most important. We must rely upon the people 

who are there and charged with the responsibility.

Fir st of all, speed limits vary from State to State and on different 

roads in the same State. Our regulations constantly have contained 

the requirement, first, tha t the laws of the States through which 

vehicles in interstate commerce operate must be observed and we also 

have maintained a regulation which requires tha t runs shall not be 

scheduled to require operation in excess of State-established limits.

Now this means that from the standpoint of the ICC we do not 

have the policing facility, personnel, nor do I think we should 

have.

This is a matter properly in the hands of the local and State authorities. Our function is exercised, however, in a substantial way 

by our influence with the managements of companies.

We meet constantly with the organized representatives of the 

American Trucking Associations, the State trucking associations, the 

National Association of Motor Bus Operators, and we continue constantly to emphasize those areas which, in our judgment, are conducive to a bad accident experience.

Now I must say in fairness to the facts of the situation, speaking 

now with respect to interstate buses, th eir accident experience in the 

last 3 years has been phenomenally good. Last year, bus accidents 

throughout the entire Nation reported to the Interstate Commerce 

Commission accounted for 123 fatalities. That means everybody, 

people who ran into the buses as well as those struck by them or those 

riding on them.

In 1961, the number was 122 fatalities. If you compare tha t with 

the fact that in 1946 this figure was 423 and for the 5 years subsequent 

to 1946, it always ranged about 300.

Miles have been reduced somewhat but fatalities and other accidental consequences have come down remarkablv faster than miles.

This does not imply any complacency on our part. We constantly 

are looking for the reasons, the explanations for the occurrences that
12 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

do take place and we do our level best to hold on the brake when we 

thi nk tha t a particular management is permitting too much speed.

Mr. H emphill. Let me say it is not management. Management is 

not driving those trucks and buses. I know th at management does 

not want speed because one accident, unless covered by a proper insurance, would wipe out a year’s profits, especially for a small 

operator.

I am glad to have the statistics but tha t does not excuse speed. 

Maybe it does. I have wondered about this thin g because, frankly, 

it irritates me in trying to train a person, to tell my children to 

obey the speed laws, or somebody going home with me driving my car, 

I say, “We will obey the speed law because people see our license 

and might judge South Carolina by the way I drive on the highways.”

But it looks to me as if you people on the Commission with the 

safety responsibility and experience you have had, could ask us to 

write into the law, if you presently do not have the authority, the 

authority for you to take some guy’s license if he is driving an inte rstate vehicle under a public service certificate of convenience and 

necessity, just as I understand they do in the State of Connecticut.

I went through there some years ago and I found out they took 

people’s license’s when you speed and they stopped it. They stopped 

it and I would be interested in that. I am not tryi ng to be too ha rd 

on people. I think if we are going to do something about safety, let 

us be realists about it. Let us put some teeth in it and see if it works.

I think too many people in Government are so scared of the big 

trucking lobbyists, bus lobbyists, the power they have and the money 

they have, tha t nobody wants to tighten down on them.

I am saying th at generally but that has been my feeling and I may 

be unjustified and wrong in saying that. But I have gotten that feeling because, they pass me going so fast, it just blows dust in your 

face when you are going 60.

Mr. Cox. Inso far as the matter of the Commission’s safety responsibility is concerned, may I offer you our assurance tha t regardless 

of how big or small they are, if the matter of safety appears to be 

not receiving proper attention we do not hesitate once ever to ask 

the Commission to institute a proceeding looking toward possible 

suspension or revocation of the certificates.

This matter has had increasing attention in the last several years 

since we placed a great deal of emphasis upon our stepped-up vehicle 

inspection program.

Mr. Hemphill. Let me assure you my line of questions is not in 

criticism because I sympathize with the problem of a limited number of people. I just hope that you may have some suggestion where 

we might help you if we could help you, and help the American 

people with this problem.

Mr. Cox. One thing further I think ought to be said here as a 

matter of factual clarification: The Commission’s responsibility in 

the matter of safety extends to about six times the number of firms 

who do not require certificates as the number who do.

This we feel is a vitally important part of our area of responsibility. But there is nothing we can take away from them.

Mr. Hemphill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to have 

taken so long.

Mr. Williams. Are there any further questions?
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 13

Mr. Goff, your statement dealt at some length with persons haying 

a loss or impairment of hearing. I must confess tha t I certainly 

would have to agree with your suggestion tha t persons who have 

suffered a complete loss of hearing should not be licensed to drive 

vehicles in interstate commerce.

However, impairment of hearing is something else. If tha t impairment of hearing is corrected by a hearing aid to the point of 

normality, does the Commission consider, under any circumstances, 

the granting of permission to a person to operate a motor vehicle 

in interstate commerce ?

Mr. Goff. I am familiar with our regulation, Mr. Chairman, but I 

believe I will let Mr. Cox answer that one, too.

Mr. Cox. The response to that, Mr. Chairman, deals with these two 

factors: First, the regulation is extremely lenient. It calls for 

hearing in conversational tones at 10 feet where 20 is normal, in 

the better ear. In other words, there can be total loss in one ear and 

if the man can hear at half the normal distance in conversational 

tones-----

Mr. Williams. Here is the point of my question, and I think 

a short answer will do the job. Do the Commission’s regulations 

prohibit absolutely the granting of a certificate or permission to 

operate or what have you, whatever license is required, to persons who 

require the use of prosthetic devices of any kind ?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir; we require this standard without dependence 

upon a hearing aid.

Mr. Williams. Do you consider eyeglasses as a prosthetic device?

Mr. Cox. I th ink they are; yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. Therefore, you deny a license to operate to any 

person who requires eyeglasses in order to correct his vision to a 

certain point ?

Mr. Cox. No; we permit the use of eyeglasses when it reaches 

prescribed visual standards.

Mr. Williams. My point is this : If a person has 20/50 vision, 

which is correctable to 20/20 vision with eyeglasses, I would presume 

he would qualify to operate by the use of eyeglasses?

Mr. Cox. Tha t is right.

Mr. Williams. If a person has a low level of hearing but that is 

correctable by a hearing device to normal hearing he is denied the 

righ t to operate ?

Mr. Cox. Tha t is right.

Mr. Williams. Wha t is the reason for tha t ?

Mr. Cox. Fundamentally the reason is the fact tha t the background noises which are constantly present in a commercial motor 

vehicle are such tha t he cannot keep the thin g turne d on without 

tremendous annoyance to himself.

Mr. Williams. It is the nature of the prosthesis, itself ?

Mr. Cox. Tha t is right. And the fact tha t it is dependent upon 

a source of power which must be kept constantly supplied, it has a 

great many delicate parts, any one of which could make it inoperative.

Mr. Williams. I think it might be well for the committee to understand just what the requirements are for a person to drive a motor 

vehicle in interstate commerce, the physical requirements at the 

present time.

20-733—64- -3
14 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

What procedures does he have to go through? What physical 

examinations must he undergo and what kind of certificate must he 

obtain ?

Mr. Cox. He must possess certain specified minimum physical and 

competence standards.

Mr. Williams. How is tha t determined?

Mr. Cox. These are matters of fact. He can either have 20/20 

vision or not.

Mr. Williams. Wha t about a fellow with a history of heart 

trouble ?

Mr. Cox. This is left to the judgment of the medical examiner.

Mr. Williams. Do you have designated medical examiners?

Mr. Cox. No, sir. Any physician or osteopath, duly licensed, may 

examine this man and if they find him to be free of mental, nervous, 

functional or organic disease, he may be permitted to drive. He must 

be examined every 3 years.

Mr. Williams. Is he issued a certificate?

Mr. Cox. He must obtain a certificate signed by the examining 

physician and it carries with it-----

Mr. Williams. I s tha t the only requirement? Does he have to 

pass any kind of road test ?

Mr. Cox. This is left to the judgment of management who employs 

him. Our basic requirement is tha t he must be competent by experience or training to drive the type of vehicle which he operates. 

This is a determination made by the employer.

Mr. Williams. Tha t I understand, and I think it makes good sense. 

But I go back to your general, your initial regulation which Mr. Goff 

says on page 5 of his statement:

disqualified individuals who failed to possess “adeq uate hea ring” or who had 

incurre d a “physical deformity or loss of limb likely to interf ere with safe 

driving.”

What does the term “likely” mean in tha t regulation and how 

has that been interpreted ?

Mr. Cox. Tha t language you have just read was language in use for 

3 years, 2/4 years prior to 1940 as to amputations. After tha t we 

went to the specific no loss of hand, foot, leg, or arm. But we have 

relied upon tha t language with respect to organic and functional 

diseases. This, sir, frankly, has been something of a problem. There 

are tremendous variations among medical examiners as to what is 

likely to constitute interference.

For this reason I believe that our next major purpose will be to 

try to better clarify tha t portion of our rules dealing with these 

matters.

Mr. Williams. It does seem to me tha t there is a tremendous 

reservoir of talent which is arbitra rily prohibited from participating 

in interstate commerce by this rigid regulation of the Interstate 

Commerce Commission.

There are so many exceptions to the general rule t hat it appears to 

me that the Commission is being just a bit too arbitra ry in its 

regulations.

I recall back during World W ar II one of the leading fighter pilots 

in Great Britain was a man who had lost both legs, Major Powell. 

Nobody questioned his ability to fly an aircraft. Nobody questioned
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 15

the fact tha t he was equally competent to those who were in good 

physical shape. Of course, the same yardstick would not necessarily 

apply to another man who had lost both legs.

Therefore, I feel tha t attention should be given to the individual 

and that certainly an individual should not be prohibited from doing 

tha t which he is fully capable of doing simply because he may have 

what appears to other people to be a disability.

I do not like to bring personal references into this but I have 

no difficulty whatsoever in flying an airc raft, although I have been 

subject to the loss of an arm and the loss of the use of a leg. I find 

tha t no handicap. Yet, I am selective in the type of aircraft I will 

fly. I know the ones tha t I can fly and there are some t hat I can’t 

fly.

The Federal Aviation Agency has set certain standards by which 

amputees can obtain commercial licenses and fly. There is a onearmed commercial pilot out in California who is a crop duster and 

takes people on charter rides. It is ra ther difficult for me to understand why the Interstate Commerce Commission has not given more 

attention to opening the door to this type of person in order to let 

him take advantage of these opportunities.

In other words, it just seems to me that surely some regulations 

could be written which would permit the use of these people if they 

are fully competent.

Let us take a truck, for instance; a truck which may operate in 

interstate commerce which uses instead of the conventional type 

gear, it uses an automatic gear, hydromatic or what have you.

There is no reason why a one-legged person could not operate tha t 

type of vehicle as easily as a person with both legs. What is the 

reasoning of the Commission with respect to a situation like tha t ?

Mr. Cox. The reason, sir, is th is : F irs t of all, these automatic tran smissions are not used in the over-the-road type of equipment.

Mr. Williams. They are used in interstate commerce in certain 

types of equipment ?

Mr. Cox. They are available in equipment up to 1 ton in capacity. 

Another part of our answer is tha t we have never prevented the use 

of certain persons in these locally commercial zone operations where 

tha t type of equipment is very commonly used.

So, our answer is tha t we have done, and always have done, precisely what you have suggested.

Mr. Goff. If I may add something there, Mr. Chairman. Remember that the vehicle that is used in this long distance interstate tra nsportation of persons or property is a large vehicle. It is a large bus. 

It is a very large truck. It is a truck tha t on the freeways can go 

up to 98 feet by special permission. The difficulty is tha t it is an 

entirely different type of vehicle which is used for this long-distance 

hauling.

The tendency of all this interstate hauling is to go to bigger and 

bigger vehicles with heavier and heavier loads. Now we have here 

some pictures tha t I think might be of interest to the committee to 

demonstrate how big these vehicles are getting to be.

Mr. Williams. I think we are familiar with that. We have seen 

those on the highways.
16 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Goff. There is the number of buttons and levers they have to 

push. Tha t means tha t a man has to have a firm grip on the wheel 

with one hand and be manipulating all these gadgets with the other.

The tendency with the big vehicles is to increase the number of 

gearshifts which are necessary to bring it into high speed.

Mr. Williams. While all of tha t is quite obvious, there is no 

intention on the part of the sponsors of this legislation, including 

myself, to give a person catre blanche authority to operate any 

equipment tha t might be on the highways if he has a disability.

The purpose of this legislation, whether the legislation is correctly 

drafted or not, and we certainly welcome suggestions to make it 

conform to this purpose, is to permit under limited circumstances 

and under favorable conditions, persons who have certain disabilities which now p rohibit them to operate motor vehicles in interstate 

commerce, to have the opportunity to operate certain vehicles in 

interstate commerce.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I have no difficulty in flying certain types of aircraft. Other types of airc raft I would not dare 

touch because I know that I can’t operate them. For instance, the 

airplane t ha t I own is a little plane which has all of the controls on 

the right-hand side. The only thin g I manipulate with my left 

arm is the wheel. I have no difficulty there. If I get in an AT-6 

which has its controls on the left-hand side, I could not get the plane 

off the ground.

Now there is no reason why certain standards relating to the individual himself and the type of equipment tha t he can operate could 

not be promulgated by the ICC. It just does not make sense to me.

I do not see why a certain category of otherwise competent people 

should be arbitrarily prohibited from getting this particular type of 

job. They may be as competent as a person who is permitted to have 

tha t type of job.

Now, does it not stand to reason tha t the ICC could promulgate 

regulations tha t would eliminate this absolute prohibition and permit certain people under certain circumstances who may have certain disabilities to drive certain types of motor vehicles in interstate 

commerce ?

Mr. Cox. We understand your question contemplates tha t this 

would be subject to limitations as to the type of vehicles.

Mr. Williams. Absolutely.

Mr. Cox. The size of vehicles and the range of operation.

Mr. Williams. Yes.

Mr. Cox. Is th at implicit in your question, sir ?

Mr. Williams. Yes.

Mr. Cox. I think it is not an unf air question. We have, frankly, 

been aware, as Vice Chairman Goff testified, of an extensive program of study of this whole program of the orthopedically handicapped which is going on under contract with the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation.

This is being paid for by Government funds. Very frankly, sir, 

we felt it would not be consistent or logical for us to attempt to 

prejudge the result until the study is completed.

Mr. Williams. How long has tha t study been going on? It was 

going on 4 or 5 years ago when we were holding hearings on this 

same legislation, as I recall.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSO NS 17

Mr. Cox. I understand it has been underway for some time.

Mr. Williams. Do you think it will ever reach a head ?

Mr. Cox. Yes, frankly, I do think so, sir. I believe tha t as the 

Vice Chairman has definitely assured the committee, when the results 

of tha t study are made available, we will give it the most careful 

consideration.

Mr. Williams. Tha t sounds like some of my letter answering.

Mr. Cox. I want you to have a better opinion of us tha n this.

I think your question is not an unf air one. I hope you will have 

confidence in our willingness to be fair and to try to reach a judgment 

consistent with our obligation.

Mr. H emphill. If the chairman will yield to me a minute, I think 

tha t you have a lot of discretion. It occurs to me in the exercise 

of tha t discretion you have the regulatory power now to do somethin g about i t; do you not ?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hemph ill Why have you not done something about it? If 

some of these people can qualify and nothing has been done about it, 

I am just curious ?

Mr. Cox. Our answer is this: We have done th at which we think 

the facts warrant and consistently our rules have permitted the use 

of these persons and drivers in what we call commercial zone 

operations.

Now this permits extensive use of people under circumstances where 

they are not exposed to great hazard to themselves or become a hazard 

to others.

The answer to your question, Mr. Hemphill, is the fact that we have 

done what we think is the righ t thing to do on the basis of present 

knowledge and particu lars because with respect to the long-distance 

operations, as the Vice Chairman testified, the complexity of the 

situation becomes more and more obvious, it is our considered ju dgment tha t we have done what is the right thing to do within the 

framework of presently available knowledge.

Mr. Hemphill. Thank you.

Mr. Williams. Let me say th is: I think the bill as it has been p resented is entirely too broad. I would certainly agree with you on 

that. I do not feel th at any doctor or osteopath is necessarily qualified to pass judgment on the ability of a handicapped person to operate any type of motor vehicle.

But I can conceive of situations where a trucking firm might have a

S

erson who is an amputee in its employ who would make an excellent 

river. They would desire to hire him as a driver, he would want the 

job, he would make as good a driver as any driver they might have 

on any of their runs in spite of his handicap.

This word “handicapped” is overworked, incidentally, but in spite 

of his physical shortcomings. Yet, they are arbitrarily prohibited 

from hiring this man. I do not want and I am sure the members of 

the committee do not want to force this type of legislation on the 

Interstate Commerce Commission but there are times when things 

have to be done in order to protect the rights of our people and to 

give them equal opportunities under certain circumstances.

It just seems to me tha t this situation has gone long enough without 

action by the authorities who are in charge.
18 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSO NS

Now I would certainly hope tha t the Commission would come up 

with some kind of plan in the very near future which will obviate 

the necessity of this kind of legislation to force them to do something about it.

Now you have experts over there in the field of safety, you have 

your lawyers, you have your medical advisers, you have your standard sections, you have any number of good brains, and I am certain 

that they can come up with something.

I think if the committee could receive the assurance of the Commission that they will come up with something in the reasonably near 

future the committee thinks perhaps would give some thought to 

relaxing the drive on enactment of this legislation because we do 

not want to do the wrong thing.

We realize the situation you are up against. But at the same time 

it requires some kind of legislation to be passed if the Commission 

does not act.

Mr. Goff. Mr. Chairman, I have great sympathy for your views. 

In the main I share them. But there are certain very practical difficulties that are ensued in taking care of these individual indications 

you talk about.

This unusual fellow who could qualify and they want him to 

qualify. I wonder if you realize the practical difficulties of arra nging for a staff, for regulations tha t would have to be made.

Mr. Williams. Has the Commission taken a look at the law and 

regulations for licensing of airc raft pilots?

Mr. Goff. I asked about tha t 2 or 3 days ago when I was going 

over this matter thoroughly before coming up here. They have a 

very complicated arrangement over there. Mr. Cox can tell you 

about it and I will have him tell you about it but before I finish, I 

want to state tha t it is a very expensive matter for the few people 

who would seek qualification or tha t trucking concerns would want 

to employ. You see, you have the trucker who is concerned about 

this, the insurance company, and the buslines.

The bus company management might feel tha t the people might 

not want to ride on their vehicle who did not understand.

Mr. Williams. This does not force this man on the bus company.

Mr. Goff. Not at all, but there are a number of very practical considerations tha t have to be taken care of. I can assure you that— 

maybe there are but two people a year who apply for authority to 

drive who are handicapped this way. You would have to put up 

a tremendous organization to take care of those two people.

Mr. Cox can tell you about what they do over at FA A.

Mr. Cox. Yes, Air. Chairman, we have been very closely in contact with the medical officials in the F ederal Aviation Agency. They 

make this point. It is true they g rant waivers.

. Mr. Williams. They do not g rant waivers any more. They impose 

limitations.

Mr. Cox. They impose limitations. But first of all, they are concerned with a very much smaller pool of people than are involved in 

the operation of the 2 million trucks operated throughout the country 

in interstate service. Furthermore, the point they make is tha t the 

man who makes the initial medical examination is designated bv 

them. 6 J
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 19

The procedures t hat he follows they lay down. They bring these 

people to Washington periodically for seminars and other training 

procedures to emphasize the significance of the medical examinations 

tha t they lay out.

Then afte r th is initial examination is made, sir, report and recommendations of the medical examiner are forwarded to headquarters 

office where they are reviewed by the medical staff of the FAA.

The safety supervisor of the FAA is instructed to ride with this 

applicant for an airman’s license, to give specific attention to his 

ability to perform under operating circumstances.

First of all, the Commission does not have a medical staff. We 

think, as the Vice Chairman has said, the cost to the Government 

would be tremendously disproportionate to the few cases th at might 

be made available to seek such justification.

Mr. W illiams. Let me interrup t you a t this point. It appears to 

me the medical staff would not be necessary because this deals with 

physical impairment. It does not deal with the general health of the 

individual. It deals with physical impairments.

When a person who has a disability of the am putation type applies 

for a pilot’s license, he is given two checkups. He is given first a 

check ride which will determine his ability to fly the aircraft within 

the requirements tha t are needed fo r the granting of tha t particular 

type of license.

He is also given what is called a medical check ride in which the inspector pays more attention to how he makes up for his deformities 

than he does to how he flies an aircraft.

I recall in my medical check ride the inspector would drop papers 

on the floor, he would p ut the airplane in an unusual altitude and see 

how quickly I reacted and how quickly I made my corrections.

Is there any reason why the inspectors could not give individuals 

medical check rides on the type of equipment tha t they are seeking 

to drive ?

Mr. Cox. I don’t concede tha t it can’t be done but it would be a 

highly dangerous business.

Mr. Williams. You do have a Bureau of Standards, a section of 

standards, drivers standards ?

Mr. Cox. We call it the Section of Motor Carrier Safety. This 

is the part of the Commission’ staff tha t recommends to the Commission what its minimum qualifications and requirements are.

Mr. Williams. The doctor examining an amputee who finds him 

otherwise in good condition would send a repo rt to the Bureau of 

Safe ty stating tha t this man is in good health but tha t he has 

certain physical limitations, an amputation of the left leg 4 inches 

below the knee with a satisfactory working prosthesis.

The Division of Safety in Washington would check tha t and 

authorize a medical check ride for him in the ty pe of equipment tha t 

he is seeking to operate. Assuming tha t his performance is satisfactory on tha t equipment, is there any reason why he should not 

be given an opportunity to operate a motor vehicle ?

Mr. Cox. My answer is tha t I think i t would be a highly complex 

and somewhat dangerous matter to test this man on a surface vehicle 

of this type and to anticipate the jackknifing, the types of emergency 

situations in which he would find himself under certain weather 

and highway conditions.
20 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE S BY DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Williams. Is it less dangerous to test a person who has full 

use of all his facilities?

Mr. Cox. We have the question of who would judge the fitting of 

the prosthetic device, the psychological adjustment of the person to 

it.

Mr. Williams. It is not a m atter of fitting. It is a matter of how 

he uses them. You see, I am talkin g from experience.

Mr. Cox. I am aware of this; yes. I do think you are proposing 

a dangerous, certainly a costly type of determination for which, if 

we are going to make a significant type of inspection, you would 

have to put this vehicle into the kind of—well, in terms of your 

experience, I will use the word “tailspin”—a jackknife operation, 

which I think would be very dangerous and certainly would be costly. 

We would have to find the personnel competent to administer it.

Mr. Williams. Is that not equally dangerous with any other person? In other words, you are just arbitrarily saying tha t a person 

with a disability is less competent in all circumstances than any other 

person who has his full facilities ?

Mr. Cox. No, I am t rying to say, sir, in answer to your question, 

tha t to make the determination as to whether he was competent or 

not would be a costly and complex matter.

Mr. Williams. I do not believe I have any further questions at 

this point.

Does that conclude your testimony ?

Mr. Goff. It does conclude our testimony, Mr. Chairman. We 

appreciate your courtesy to us here. It is always a pleasure to 

appear before this subcommittee. I am happy tha t you and Mr. 

Hemphill stayed right to the end. We appreciate it.

Mr. Cox suggests, Mr. Chairman, th at if you would be interested at 

all in seeing one of these grea t big trucks tha t are used in longdistance hauling brought up just to examine it to see the size and 

complexity of it, tha t we can arrange to have it brought up here.

Mr. W illiams. I do not thin k that is the issue here. We are not 

attempting to force disabled drivers on these tremendous vehicles 

tha t they can’t operate. We are not suggesting tha t these people be 

forced. Understand, once they get their license they still have to 

get hired. The people who own the trucklines are the ones who 

are taking the chance on the liability in case of accident.

There is no requirement tha t anybody hire these people to drive 

these trucks. The only th ing we are asking is that they oe given an 

opportunity to compete.

Mr. Goff. Mr. Chairman, we believe as a practical matter if there 

is a man in the situation you refer to tha t he can get a job. As has 

been pointed out in my original testimony, most cities have an area 

of commercial zone tha t covers more than the actual city limits.

The one around Chicago is a tremendous area. Now we exempt 

the drivers in these commercial zones from these safety regulations, 

tha t is as to their qualifications. If a man who is qualified—as you 

say, he can go to a fellow w’ho does intracity trucking where they 

have smaller vehicles, he can get a job.

I think there are a number of them actually so employed righ t 

now. We don’t interfere with that. They are much smaller vehicles, 

they go at much less speeds. As I say, their loads are much lighter
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 21

when the y are ju st tra ns po rtin g the m or dina rily inside a com mercial 

zone an d there is an op po rtu nity for men in th at sit ua tio n to secure 

emplo yment as drivers.

Mr. William s. I un de rst an d th at . Bu t I feel th at you are ar bi ­

tr ari ly denying an op po rtu nity to this ma n to make full use of all of 

his fac ulties, his fac ilities , an d his abilitie s when his abilitie s may be 

equal to tho se who alr eady operate.

W ha t I am suggest ing is th at the individu al him self, th is be pu t 

on an individu al basis, and the indiv idual who does pro ve him sel f 

to be equ ally com pet ent to the othe r individu al shall no t suffer ar bitr ar ily, a nd I use th is w ord re lucta ntly, “discrim ination.”

I t does no t seem like ly. I am sure you w’ill hav e to agree wi th me 

in pr ivate th at it is no t rig ht . Yo ur objection to th is th in g is in 

the mec hanics of doing it. Is th at n ot rig ht , bas ically ?

Mr. Goff. We ll, I wou ld not quite say th at . I th in k I ou gh t to 

inv te yo ur attenton to the fa ct th at th e statutes say th at we are 

respon sible fo r saf ety . Now, how ever, I might have a human im ­

pulse, a hu m an ta ria n desire to individu ally approv e qua lifi cation by 

one of these men, an d heavens knows, I kno w plen ty of the m who 

I ad mi re very much.

Mr. William s. H ow about a fello w with the loss of a couple of 

fing ers on his han d ? Is he ba rre d ?

Mr. Goff. No ; he wou ld no t be.

Mr. William s. Yet, wi th his three fing ers he might no t be as 

stro ng as a m an wi th good wo rking pr osthesis.

Mr. Goff. Tha t may be tru e bu t our res ponsibi lity is to maintain 

as fa r as we can safety on the hig hways . We hav e no res ponsibi lity 

such as the Dep artm en t of Hea lth , Ed uc ation, an d W elfare, to tak e 

care of these othe r people, however , we might individu ally des ire to 

do it.

Our res ponsibility on the Commission is to do wh at we th in k is 

going to assure safety on the highways . I can only po int ou t th at 

if we did have a ma n who is so ha nd ica pp ed wi th gr ea t big tru ck s, 

we could only have to hav e one bad acc ide nt and you know who 

wou ld be blam ed fo r it.

Th e answer wou ld be, “W ha t was wrong with those fello ws, lettin g 

a man drive in that condition ?”■—they w ould not know' all t he answ ers, 

w’e are no t dodg ing criticisms, we get it both ways, bu t it is sim ply 

th at w’e kn ow there is one w ay hig hw ays are g oin g to be safe and th at 

is that a t le ast the f ello w w ho has a ter rif ic physica l hand ica p won’t be 

dr ivin g one of these vehicles. I t is too dan ger ous.

I t is the same pro position as I see i t as puttin g a man wi th a pr os ­

thetic device in one of th ese big t ra ns po rt plan es. I ju st do n’t th in k 

there is en oug h d em and f or it th at an ybody would do it.

Mr. Williams. We ll, I qui te agree w ith you except I do no t th in k 

he should be ba rre d fro m op erating one of these big tran sp or t plan es 

if he prov es him sel f p hysic ally cap able o f d oing so.

Pe rh ap s you agree wi th me in principle on th at ?

Mr. Goff. Mr. Ch air ma n, I certa inly agree wi th you on princ iple. 

I do.

Mr. Williams. As a m at te r of fac t, we hav e ha nd icap pe d peo ple 

op erating big t ra ns po rt planes, pe rhap s no t fo r the air lin es but they 

are operat ing .
22 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PER SONS

Mr. Hemphill. Do you have any provision for a fellow who has 

awful big feet? I wonder if some of this trouble is caused by big 

feet, a heavy foot ? I am not being facetious.

Mr. Goff. No, you are not, because I know what you mean, it is 

heavy on the foot throttle.

Mr. Hemphill. A man with big feet would naturally have more 

pressure.

Mr. Goff. Mr. Cox has one more statement. We don’t want to 

take too much of your time.

Mr. Cox. It might be of interest to you, sir, to know th at of those 

accidents tha t now occur under presently existing regulations, 56 

percent of the truckdrivers who are killed are killed in accidents 

involving loss of control, jackknifing, overturning, vehicle leaving 

the road. Forty-four percent of those who are injured are drivers 

of commercial vehicles of the carriers reporting to us. Twenty-two 

percent of all the people injured in accidents reporting to us by common and contract carriers are drivers of the carrier-owned trucks.

For this reason we have felt tha t we are serving the interest of 

the handicapped person, himself as well as tha t of the public in 

general.

Mr. Williams. These statistics are very interesting but I fail to 

see relevance. When you have two individuals equally competent, 

one who may have suffered some type of physical impairment and the 

other who has not, why one should be arbitrarily ruled against and 

the other for it is hard for me to understand. As I say, we have 

pretty well covered the subject in this testimony. Let me ask you 

one more question.

Mr. Goff, this committee would like very much to have the agency 

or the Commission come up with some constructive suggestions for 

handling this situation. I think all of us realize tha t a central examination by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy probably does not meet 

the safety standards.

I certainly would welcome the cooperation of the Commission in 

assisting in the draftin g of legislation should it become necessary 

or should the committee decide to approve such legislation to assist us 

in pu tting it into proper shape.

Mr. Goff. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I speak for the Commission 

in saying that if it is the desire of this committee and you, Mr. Chairman, we will tr y to work some kind of proposal.

Mr. Williams. I do not think there is anyone on the committee and 

I doubt if there is anyone in Congress who would not be sympathetic 

to the purposes of this legislation. Of course, I am not authorized 

to speak for the Congress but I certainly have not spoken to an individual in Congress who has not expressed sympathy with this situation, and who has not said tha t something should be done to remove 

this absolute prohibition against these people if they prove themselves 

to be equally competent.

Thus far all we have from the Commission is just arbitrary opposition to any move that would be in the direction of licensing persons 

who may have suffered certain types of disability.

I would certainly hope t hat the Commission would cooperate with 

us, particularly in trying to set up certain criteria which should be 

followed in the licensing of these people should the Congress decide 

to take such action.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 23

I would like to have some recommendations or suggestions from the 

Commission to this effect.

Although we oppose doing anything about it, nevertheless if the Congress 

insists upon it we would suggest so and so.

Do you follow what I mean ?

Mr. Gorr. I do. If Congress directed or authorized us to certificate drivers, tha t is permit drivers, to operate these long-distance 

vehicles in interstate commerce, what is our recommendation as to 

means to facilitate the desire of Congress if that desire is manifested 

by the Congress.

Mr. Williams. Tha t is right.

Mr. Goff. Tha t is what you want ?

Mr. Williams. That is right.

Mr. Goff. We will go ahead on tha t basis. I think tha t Air. 

Cox and his staff will prepare some recommendations for that purpose. Now I do think you should realize tha t this study which has 

been referred to at Harvard has taken a long while, and it is going 

on at a lot of Government expense. Just as Mr. Cox has stated, we 

feel tha t tha t is going on, they are going to make findings on this 

and we hesitated because why should we be spending money for 

the same purpose on which it is being spent at Ha rvard ?

Mr. Williams. If they want to subsidize th at study, let us move it 

on down to the University of Mississippi. We need the money.

Mr. Goff. We will make some recommendations and get them up 

in a reasonable time.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much, Mr. Goff. The committee, 

of course, will give you a reasonable length of time to submit suggested recommendations. We are not in a position to want to force a 

thing on the ICC which it cannot handle. I do feel and I am sure 

other members of the committee will agree, tha t this is not an impossible situation, it can be handled and it can be handled fairly. We 

would like to have the suggestions of the Commission in tha t respect. 

Thank both of you gentlemen very much.

Air. Goff. Thank you.

Mr. Williams. We have two other witnesses listed on this legislation appearing together, I believe. Air. Neely and Air. Rennolds. 

Mr. Neely, how long is your statement ?

STATEMENT OE J. R. NEELY, VICE PRESIDENT, EASTERN GREYHOUND LINES, ON BEHALE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OE

MOTOR BUS OWNERS

Air. Neely. The two statements should not take more than 10 or 

15 minutes, sir.

Air. AVilliams. Fine. We will do our best. The House is in session right now. We will continue until we have to leave.

Air. N eely. Air. Chairman and members of the subcommittee-----

Air. Williams. Air. Neely, are you testifying on behalf of yourself 

and Air. Rennolds?

Air. Neely. No; we have two statements to present.

Air. Williams. I see.

Air. Neely. Aly name is J. R. Neely and I am vice president for 

safety and personnel training for Eastern Greyhound Lines with
24 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. I have been employed in the bus 

industry for more than 34 years. Presently, my duties are primarily 

concerned with safety of operations and personnel selection and 

training.

I appear today on behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus 

Owners, a national trade association which serves as spokesman for 

approximately 1,000 intercity motor common carriers of passengers 

who provide somewhat more than three-fourths of the Nation’s total 

intercity passenger travel by motorbus.

I am also authorized to present the views of the Greyhound Corp, 

of which my employer, Eastern Greyhound Lines, is one of the four 

operating bus divisions. As a whole, Greyhound operates a fleet of 

5,000 buses approximately half a billion vehicle-miles annually and, 

during 1962, supplied more tha n 10 billion passenger-miles of travel. 

To do this we employ approximately 10,000 drivers.

Our records show tha t our passengers are 17 times safer than those 

who tra vel by private automobile, 4 times safer than those who fly 

and equally as safe as those who travel by train.

This outstanding safety record is primarily the result of continuing emphasis on our safety programs involving maintenance of 

vehicles, constant attention to driver training and retra ining and. 

of paramount importance, extremely rigorous standards in the selection of driver personnel; well under 10 percent of our applicants 

meet our standards and still fewer survive the training program and 

subsequent qualifying tests.

Specifically, applicants to qualify as Greyhound drivers must 

be between 25 and 35 years of age, 5 feet 8 inches to 6 feet 2 inches 

in height, 155 to 210 pounds in weight and proper proportio ned; be 

in top physical condition and possess the appropriate psychological, 

emotional, and aptitude characteristics.

These requirements are substantially more stringent than those 

prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in recognition of 

the fact tha t each one of our drivers, while on the road, has the 

sole responsibility for the safety and welfare of up to 50 passengers 

and must, therefore, be in top condition at all times.

During the course of a year the intercity bus industry bears the 

responsibility for the safety of more than 460 million passengers.

Air. B. A. Rennolds, who will present a statement following my 

testimony, will provide more specific detail on the requirements of 

the busdriver’s job, and I shall not repeat this material since our 

two statements have been coordinated as a package.

I wish, however, to comment briefly on three points. May I pre face those comments, however, by emphasizing tha t we earnestly support the objectives of the various organizations which are encouraging the employment of handicapped persons.

We can and do employ such personnel in terminals, offices, stockrooms, and in other capacities where such practice is consistent with 

safety. But we do not include driving an intercity bus in this 

category for reasons which Air. Rennolds will detail.

Attached to my statement is a copy of an official policy statement 

on this issue as adopted by the National Association of Motor Bus 

Owners. Unless the subcommittee wishes me to do so, I shall not 

read this statement, but I respectfully request tha t it be included in 

the record.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 25

Under H.B. 827, the Commission could not prohibit the operation 

of any motor vehicle in interstate commerce by an individual who 

has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or 

loss of hearing if the individual has been examined by a licensed 

physician who determines tha t the individual is capable of operating 

such a vehicle safely.

As Mr. Rennold’s testimony will indicate, the safe operation of 

intercity motorbuses and all of the techniques involved therein constitute a highly complex and specialized field with which physicians in 

general could not be expected to be familiar.

By this same token, we, as safety specialists, do not presume to 

conduct physical and other examinations of drivers, delegating these 

functions to physicians and psychologists.

I recall a case in which we discharged a driver who had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. The driver’s own physician held 

tha t he was qualified to drive under certain specified conditions and 

the case went to medical arbitration under our labor contract.

Two of the three physicians held for the driver, and it was necessary for us to enlist the assistance of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Public Health Service to get a final ruling tha t this 

man was not qualified to drive. I mention this to emphasize that we 

require the present regulation prohibiting the use of amputee drivers 

in view of the difficulties of enforcing our own company standards 

which our many years of experience have proved essential.

It should also be noted that we could not, in any event, employ handicapped drivers since to do so would put us in violation of regulations in a m ajority of the States which have adopted rules identical 

or similar to those of the ICC. This is so because, on virtually all of 

our operations, we carry intrastate as well as interstate passengers 

and are thus subject to regulation at both the State and local levels.

Finally, it should be pointed out that common carriers of passengers are required by law in most States to exercise the highest 

degree of care of their passengers consistent with the operation of 

their business. “Highest degree of care” means more than “ordinary 

care” as would be involved with other vehicular traffic and places a 

burden on the carrier to foresee any reasonable possibility tha t might 

result in an accident.

A determination by a jury of failure on the part of the carrier to 

exercise the highest degree of care in any accident or property damage 

litiga tion could result in a holding of negligence under the law. An 

accident involvement when the busdriver is handicapped might constitute prima facie evidence of failure to exercise the highest degree 

of care on the part of the carrier.

Further, we are required by the ICC and the several S tate regulatory agencies to be adequately insured against public liability. Uncontroverted testimony in the proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex Parte MC-J+O-Sub 1 (In the Matter of

Qualifications and Maximum Hours of Service of Employees of

Motor Carriers and Sa fet y of Operations and Equipment, decided 

September 16, 1949, 49 MCC 669), in which consideration was given 

to possible modification of the present rule proscribing the employment of amputee drivers, showed tha t the largest inclusive insurer 

of motor carrier operations in the country would refuse to cover
26 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERS ONS

any vehicle driven by an amputee. I f coverage were obtainable at 

all in the case of bus operations, it would be at utterly prohibitive 

cost.

As I have indicated, Mr. Rennolds has a statement containing more 

specific o peratin g data pertinent to this proposal. I believe it will be 

helpful if he may be perm itted to present his testimony at this point, 

so that the subcommittee will have the fu ll picture before it as a basis 

for any questions, whic h we shall be g lad to answer.

(Th e document refe rred to follow s:)

Stateme nt on Handicapped Drivers by Nation al Association of Motor Bus

Owners

The National Association of Motor Bus Owners reiterates its vigorous opposition to any relaxation of section 191.2 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission with respect to its 

application to intercity bus operations. This regulation prohibits the employment of drivers in interstate commerce who have lost a foot, leg, hand, 

or arm. In addition to approving in full the rationale of division 5 of the 

Commission in its decision of September 16, 1949, in Ex Parte MC-JfO, in which proceeding NAMBO participated, the following considerations are essential:

1. The driver of an intercity bus has sole responsibility for the welfa re and 

safe ty of 40 or more passengers, often hundreds of miles from a terminal and 

with no supervision or assistance available. He must deal with passengers who 

may become ill or disorderly. He must be able to handle heavy baggage and 

express, often unassisted. On occasions he must make repairs to the vehicle, 

change tires weighing 200 pounds or more, install chains on icy highways, 

handle heavy fire extinguishers, and physically assist passengers in the event 

of an emergency.

2. The modern intercity bus is a powerful vehicle, capable of sustained high 

speeds and equipped with a wide variety of complex controls governing propulsion, air conditioning, warning devices, and two-way radio.

3. It is the considered opinion of the intercity bus industry that these as well 

as numerous other driver functions can be adequately and safely performed 

only by men in top physical and mental condition and with all their extremities 

intact.

Mr. Nee ly. How ever , before tin ning this over to Mr. Rennolds, I 

would like to say, Mr. Chairma n, tha t from an industry point of view 

it is true tha t we can control the people whom we initially hire but 

we do have a problem, which is a ver y serious one in my par ticu lar 

position, of driv ers who have been employed and who become physi ­

cal ly disqualified.

Under our labor agreement these matters, if they become disputed 

matters, are submitted to a medical board o f arbitration.

For tun ately, our doctor who is our representative, of course has the 

obligation and the understa nding of the med ical-legal aspects fac ing 

our indu stry but tha t responsi bility does not lie with the neutral 

doctor or the ind ividual’s personal physician.

The refore, we have situations in a medical arbitration wherein 

the neutral doctor will rule the man capa ble of retu rnin g to dri vin g 

duty and in those cases we rea lly have only the court of last resort 

in the IC C regulations.

Th is case that I cited in my direct testim ony is a case in point. 

Th is man had had several commitments, voluntary commitments, for 

his trouble. We pulled him out of service and the case went to 

med'cal arb itra tion; the third doctor ruled that he could return to 

work prov ided he did not use alcoho l, tha t he receive 9 hours sleep 

at nip-lit, and that he have his wi fe attend with him for a periodic 

examination.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSO NS 27

I fe lt so strongly tha t this man was not a man who should be driv ­

ing a bus I took the position t hat this did not qualify the man within the limitations of ICC regulations. As such and without a contract violation perhaps as far as the union was concerned, I did submit it to the ICC who in turn , submitted it to the Department of 

Public Health and they supported our viewpoint.

I cite this to indicate tha t we do need in industry what support 

we can gain from the ICC regulations, not so much in the initia l 

employment as in the type of situation tha t may arise afte r a man 

has been employed for some years.

In our particular company, actually the benefits a man who is 

employed receives under the disability part of our pension plans 

are very material. If a man, conceivably at a young age is incapacitated, the total moneys tha t he will receive over his lifetime 

are very, very substantial.

So this is not necessarily an economic matter because we do pay 

a considerable sum of money for disability cases t hat occur while on 

the job, but it is a question of the public responsibility and the problem we have as far as the public is concerned. We particularly, and 

all of the class I intercity carriers, feel deeply on this matter because of the fact tha t our cargo consists of human beings, and they 

are solely entrusted to our care.

The other side I would like to cover very briefly is Mr. Hemphill’s 

inquiry about speed of buses. I would say as a safety man for 

Greyhound, and long associated with the bus business, management is 

very critical of d rivers’ speeds.

In our case, we have approximately 10,000 busdrivers, tha t is 10,000 

individuals. Unfortunately, we cannot be with them every minute 

on the road but I might outline very briefly what we do on our 

division.

A man is requested and required to report any citation he gets. 

We follow up and render discipline on tha t citation regardless of 

the disposition made by the police authority.

We also have arrangem ents with most of the police authorities to 

notify us of any citations tha t are issued to our men because we want 

to be sure tha t they do report it to us. If they fail to report it 

we take even stronger disciplinary action.

In the case of Greyhound, we operate our buses with a governor 

which is a mechanical device, of course, and primarily controls the 

revolutions per minute of the motor and in turn, controls the speed. 

Like any mechanical device, it is not infallible and if one of our 

men is given a ticket or we pick them up in our road patrol for 

speeding, the standard instructions are tha t the governor is to be 

immediately checked out. If the governor is not properly set or there 

is a failure on the part of the maintenance man to set it properly, 

appropria te disciplinary action is taken in the maintenance dep artment.

On Eastern Greyhound I have eight field safety men who spend 

about 75 percent of their time on the road observing what our drivers 

are doing. In safety we can lecture our drivers and discipline 

them, but the actual performance, and I think tha t is what Mr. 

Hemphill is re ferring to, the performance of the drivers, we feel we
28 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

have to know to the best of our ability what these men are doing 

out on the road.

If our safety supervisors pick up speed violations, in tu rn tha t results in disciplinary action. We do on occasion, of course, have complaints from the public about buses speeding.

If we know the time, place, and bus number, our usual procedure is 

to put a safety man out following tha t particular driver because we 

can’t very w7ell discipline on third-party evidence. So we actually 

go out and check th at driver very thoroughly, possibly three or four 

times, to pick up violations, speed violations, violations in passing, or 

following too closely.

Again, operating ha lf a billion miles we cannot follow every driver 

every minute. Unquestionably with tha t many individuals, we have 

some violating the law. We try to catch up with them as fast as we 

can and take strong action. I hope th at explains a bit what industry 

does in this speed connection.

Mr. Hemphill. I thank you for tha t statement. What are your 

governors set at ?

Mr. Neely. Sixty-five.

Mr. Hemphill. I tell you now, most of them do not work. I tell 

you from firsthand information. If you want to ride with me sometime—I was asking some trucking people, for instance, in here the 

other day about this problem. I went to Quantico the next morning 

and I told my secretary to take me down there.

I said, “Let us see if we pass any trucks or buses.” We did and 

were passed by every truck and every bus th at came along. We were 

running exactly what the very law said the speed limit was.

Mr. Neely. May I ask, is your speedometer calibrated?

Mr. Hemphill. Yes, sir; because in North Carolina they have a 

measured mile which I use and I am very careful about it because I 

have a license on the back of my car tha t tells you who I am. I do 

not want people to think wrong of my State because I take advantage of my immunity to disobey the law. I do not do it.

I am not beefing at management about this thing. I think if somebody raised their voice, maybe somebody would have real concern 

about it. If we are going to have speed laws, they should be obeyed 

or else we should not have the law. If the laws are not to be obeyed, 

or schedules are such that the drivers have to have speed to make it 

up, let us come out with it and we will try to help you with it. But 

this business of saying it does not happen but every so often—I see it 

every time. I never see the opposite. Let me tell you this: As a 

lawyer I have represented a great many bus companies at times. 

I have sued them, I have represented them. I know something 

about the facts of life about them because in trying a lawsuit you 

get it all.

So f ar as whether or not speed is concerned, there are all sorts of 

a buses about it. I have been somewhat concerned. Personally, it 

makes no difference to me about such a thing. I just wondered why 

it is so prevalent in any commercial vehicle. Maybe I am wrong. 

If I am wrong, you tell me or you come ride with me, either one.

Mr. Neely. The one favor I would like to ask of you is tha t any 

time you do observe a Greyhound or I am sure what I say is also true 

of Trailways, if you would write the number down and the location
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE S BY DISABLED PERSONS 29

and direction the bus was going, we will be out there on tha t man 

right away as quickly as we can have somebody available to do it 

because we do not condone this.

I certainly wouldn’t dispute the fact that it happens because I know 

it does happen. We are very anxious to get at the majority of 

drivers, actually in a sense, who are guilty of this type of thing. 

As far as management is concerned, we will move in fast and hard 

on them if we can nail it down to who it is.

Mr. H emphill. I have no criticism of the management. I -want to 

ask one final question: Does your management subscribe to a State 

law such as they have in Connecticut where speeders lose the ir 

license ?

Mr. Neely. Yes. In my work I have periodic contact with a g reat 

number of police authorities. Our position is tha t we do not want 

any special favors at all. We want our men to comply exactly with 

the law.

Mr. H emphill. Do you believe th at ought to be the law, you have 

the power to take the ir license if they are speeding?

Mr. Neely. I think that is good law.

Mr. Hemphill. It is good policy, too; is it not ?

Mr. Neely. It is very good policy, but I think the facts have to 

be very well established.

Mr. H emphill. Most of the policemen I know are fairly honorable 

people. The only time I ever got caught in my life, I was just as 

guilty as all get-out, I paid the fine and told the fellow I did not 

want to hear any more about it. He was one of the best friends I 

had.

Mr. Neely. As far as our industry is concerned, management does 

not condone this. If a man is going to lose his license for doing it, 

we have no objection.

Mr. Hemphill. Do you have a company policy if you get caught 

for speeding or one of these violations which you know causes one 

of these big wrecks, “We take your license”? Do you have anything 

like that ?

Mr. Neely. It is a little more complex with a union involved for 

industry to do that. We have progressive discipline. This can be 

grounds for dismissal bu t on the basis of one speeding ticket I don’t 

think we could actually discharge the man under the present collective bargaining situation. The union would not agree that tha t was 

sufficient ground for dismissal. But if a man has a cumulative bad 

record, including speeding or other violations, he is up for discharge. 

Again, it depends on the facts and ability to uphold before a board 

of arbitration.

Mr. Hemphill. Who pays the fine when the man gets caught?

Mr. Neely. The man pays the fine. The company does not pay 

any fine. The only exception to tha t might be if a light goes out 

and it went out en route and the driver was not responsible for tha t 

or could not have controlled it. Tha t type of thing the company 

will occasionally—or fail to have the proper license plate, we will 

pay that, but no speeding, no traffic violations does the company pay. 

Tha t is the man’s personal responsibility.

Mr. Hemphill. Thank you.
30 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Williams. Mr. Neely, gettin g back to the bill at hand, as I 

understand your testimony, it is based on several objections. One is 

the difficulty tha t you have in negotiating with the Teamsters or 

the unions tha t represent your drivers. Tha t is easy enough to 

understand. There is hardly a need to debate that or to get additional information on that.

Mr. Hemphill. Let me ask you th is: Wouldn’t the union cooperate 

with you on safety? I should think tha t would be their first ambition.

Mr. Neely. The union will cooperate but when it comes to a matter 

of disciplining a man, their position is one of protecting the individual man. They have no liabilities as far as the performance of 

the man and they, in my opinion, lean over backward in the protection of the individual as compared to the safety position as far as 

the public and the company and the company’s liabilities are 

concerned.

But this is a natu ral outgrowth of the politics involved and the 

role which they play. I don’t say it critically in any sense of the 

word, but this is the tendency and many times the union president, 

will appeal a case he does not think he is right on, but if the membership wants it he is in there pushing it. This is p art of the political atmosphere in which he lives.

Mr. Hemphill. Tha t is part of his job. He has no choice. It is 

like the district attorney who gets a client he is told to prosecute. 

The grand jury by its indictment brings out a true bill. He does 

not want to prosecute. I have seen cases like that. But he has 

no choice if he is going to accept the honor as well as the 

responsibility.

Mr. Neely. That is right.

Mr. Williams. Tha t was the first problem tha t you brought out, 

not necessarily in order, but tha t was one of the problems. Tha t is 

certainly worth giving though t to.

The second one tha t you brought up was the possible conflict 

with State laws, dealing with the same subject. Tha t could be 

very easily handled by, I believe, by the subcommittee in writing 

legislation by p utting a proviso in there and I am enough of a States’ 

righ ter to advocate that the passage of this legislation would in no 

way affect the operation of laws in effect in any State. I do not think 

tha t would pose much of a difficulty. Of course, you never can tell 

about this crowd across the street over here what they might 

do if it ever gets to them.

Mr. Neely. That is correct, if the interstate regulations said that 

it did not restrict the amputee from driving and the State of Maryland did, you could not hire a man to drive in Maryland in intrastate service.

Mr. Williams. I would not want to try to repeal any State laws. 

The third thing you brought up is tha t you find yourself in great 

sympathy with this legislation but otherwise, you oppose it. It is 

similar to legislation sponsored by 85 Senators in the other body 

but they cannot get it out of the subcommittee. Tha t happens so 

often.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 31

What you are saying in effect is tha t notwithstanding the actual 

capabilities of two people, one who may have an amputation and 

the other may not, that it follows ipso facto tha t a person with the 

amputation is less capable than the person without the amputation?

Mr. Neely. Well, tha t inference certainly could be drawn from 

the testimony. I think, however, tha t in an explanation of tha t in 

the bus industry the duty or the work of the driver is governed entirely by seniority. He can bid certain jobs as he gets older.

In the bus industry basically we have three different models of 

buses at the present time. But this is standard because any driver 

may get any bus at any particular moment.

In other words, the equipment is not tied in necessarily to the 

driver. The equipment, and this is one of the basic principles tha t 

bus transporta tion has been successful on, is tha t we have so many 

buses and if they are qualified to go anyplace and the drivers are 

qualified to go anyplace, tha t the public demands transportation to, 

w’e can take care of them because we have always worked on the 

premise th at we try to take care of all the people who present themselves for any particular schedule. Anything tha t would diminish 

tha t flexibility of either the equipment or the utilization of drivers 

in turn would make for additional problems.

This is not like you can assign a man to drive between point A and 

B with the same bus every time because the industry does not function that way. Our problem, of course, is to get utilization of equipment.

Mr. Williams. If you will excuse me, I do not think tha t poses too 

great a problem with respect to this legislation because of the fact, 

as I would contemplate the legislation, it would permit the ICC to 

prescribe rules and circumscribe the type of equipment tha t could 

be operated by any individual. So as to the seniority aspects, while 

he might be entitled to it as a company policy or under some type 

of union agreement when he moved from one type of equipment to 

another, the ICC regulations m ight prohibit him from operating the 

other type of equipment.

We will now’ hear from Mr. B. A. Rennolds, wdio will present a 

statement on behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Owners.

STA TEM ENT OE B. A. RENNOLDS, VIC E PR ES IDEN T, VIR GIN IA

STAGE LIN ES, ON BE HA LF OF TH E NATIO NAL ASSOC IATION OF

MOTOR BUS OWNERS

Mr. Rennolds. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my 

name is B. A. Rennolds and I am vice president for operations, Virginia Stage Lines, Charlottesville, Va. My company is a member of 

the National Association of Motor Bus Owners w’hich has been described by the previous witness.

Virginia Stage Lines is also a member of the National Trailways 

Bus System, an association of nearly 50 companies operating coast 

to coast. I am also authorized to speak for the latter organization 

in this hearing.

I have been associated with the intercity bus industry for 27 

years, during 15 of which I was director of safety for my company. 

As operating vice president, safety of operations constitutes an 

important portion of my responsibilities.
32 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

As Mr. Neely has pointed out, we earnestly support the objective of 

employing increasing proportions of handicapped workers, but we 

feel equally strongly tha t we cannot risk the safety and welfare of 

our passengers by employing them as intercity bus drivers.

As the members of this committee know, the modern intercity 

coach is a relatively heavy vehicle with complex characteristics. 

Many of the operations are over modern expressways on which all 

traffic moves at comparatively high speeds.

To operate under these conditions, top physical condition is essential, and we are convinced tha t a driver, equipped with a prosthetic 

device, is inevitably subject to some increase in reaction time whenever the limb or member so fitted is involved. For a number of 

reasons, this is extremely important.

Our coaches are equipped with power steering which is very sensitive to slight movements. Full use of both feet and legs is necessary 

since we do not use automatic transmissions. The left foot is 

required for use of the air-assisted clutch and the right foot for accelerator and air-brake control.

Almost constant use of these controls is required while driving in 

congested areas. Numerous other controls have to be manipulated 

with great frequency such as headlight dimmers, turn signals, inside 

lights, ventilation, and air-conditioning controls.

Particularly in the case of the very sensitive devices that govern 

operations of the vehicle, a sense of “feel” or “touch” is vital and. 

of course, is absent in any member fitted with a prosthetic device.

For example, instantaneous and absolutely accurate steering response is essential in the case of a front-tire failure, and delay of 

the smallest fraction of a second could be catastrophic. Any abrupt 

movement of clutch, accelerator or airbrake pedal could readily 

result in injuries to passengers, some of whom might be in the aisle 

on their way to or from the restroom.

It should also be noted tha t these operations must continue under 

all sorts of varying highway, terrain, and weather conditions.

In addition to actual operation of the vehicle, drivers are required 

to load and unload baggage and express packages up to 100 pounds, 

assist or even carry disabled passengers (particula rly in the event 

of an accident or other emergency), cope with disorderly passengers, 

make minor repairs to the coach, apply or remove heavy chains, and 

change tires weighing 200 pounds or more.

Frequent movement by the drive r in and out of the coach is also 

necessary on many runs where substantial volumes of package 

express and mail are picked up or deposited.

It is our firm conviction tha t the performance of these tasks 

requires the unimpaired use of all physical characteristics, and 

especially so in the case of an emergency such as an accident or a 

fire.

We have not overlooked the improvements t hat have been made in 

the design and manufacture of prosthetic devices. As already noted, 

they nevertheless still lack the ability to permit rapid reflex reac ion 

and the sense of feel or touch essential to safe operation of a coach 

with its human cargo; nor is any prosthetic device completely infallible.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS 33

Further, the driver of an intercity coach is, in most cases, the entire 

crew, and he must be able to cope with all types of situations often 

many miles from any supervisor or other company employee or even 

any outside assistance at all. Failure of a prosthetic device under 

such conditions would be extremely serious.

We therefore earnestly urge the subcommittee not to report this 

measure favorably and, in any event, not to make any relaxation of 

the present regulations applicable to motor carriers of passengers.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views and, as Mr. 

Neely has indicated, will be glad to respond to your questions.

Mr. Williams. The committee appreciates receiving your statement, Mr. Rennolds, and wishes to than k you for your appearance.

Mr. Rennolds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. The bells have already rung, so the committee will 

stand in recess.

(The following material was submitted for the record:)

The President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped,

Washington, D.C., May 13, 1963.

Hon. John Bell Williams,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Williams : I appreciate this opportunity to express my 

views and the views of the President’s Committee on H.R. 827.

The Executive Committee of the President’s Committee has endorsed the 

principles underlying H.R. 827, and we urge its speedy enactment. It may be 

possible tha t specific details are in need of refinement, but these in no way 

lessen the need for this measure.

At present, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not permit handicapped 

persons to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce, regard 

less of their individual qualifications. This, as we see it, is in violation of one 

of the most basic principles of the President’s Committee, which we have been 

striving to further for the past decade and a half—that every applicant for 

employment have the right to be considered on his own merits as an individual, 

and not be deprived of consideration merely because of the fact of his handicap.

We have made progress in furthering this philosophy over the years—but our 

progress has not extended to the Interstate Commerce Commission. There, the 

very fact of a handicap is sufficient, per se, to deprive the applicant of consideration for employment.

This rigid principle of inequality is hardly in keeping with our times, which 

have seen an extension of opportunity for the handicapped, rath er than a 

contraction.

Further, this rigid principle of inequality, if extended in its logical direction, 

could result in a general negation of much of the progress achieved over the 

years.

If amputees and the deaf are to be deprived of the opportunity to qualify 

as drivers in interstate commerce merely because they happen to be amputees 

or deaf, why shouldn’t they also be deprived of the opportunity to work in 

other fields of endeavor? If the amputees and the deaf are to be deprived, why 

not persons with other types of disabilities?

Where does this stop? The circle of inequality could widen extensively, were 

the ICC philosophy to gain widespread acceptance.

We do not ask tha t the ICC suddenly throw open its doors and give top 

priority to all the amputees and all the deaf.

We do ask that the ICC take into consideration the appreciable advances 

made over recent years in quick-to-respond prosthetic appliances for the handicapped and in fingertip special controls for motor vehicles.

We do ask that the ICC take cognizance of the fine records handicapped 

drivers have made in intrasta te commerce—records tha t easily could stretch 

across State lines, were the ICC willing.

We do ask that the ICC begin to evaluate human beings as human beings, and 

not as outmoded stereotypes wearing tags, “amputee,” “deaf.”

We do ask that the ICC—as well as all Government agencies and all private 

industry—evaluate individuals as individuals, and not bar them merely because 

of handicaps.
34 OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS

The ICC no long er ca n af fo rd to igno re th is tr end to w ar d eq ua lity , an y m or e 

th an it ca n affo rd to igno re th e ad va nc es of mod er n sic en ce in m ak in g it 

fe as ib le fo r th e ha nd icap pe d to dr iv e safely.

The re al ly da ng er ou s re su lt of it s st ati c po licy is th a t it has se rv ed as a 

mo del fo r Sta te s an d loca l bodie s which fr eq uen tly pi ck up F ed er al ru le s an d 

in co rp or at e them in to th e ir ow n re gu la tion s. T hu s a ba sic e rr o r is perp et uat ed 

and snow ba lle d.

The Pre si dent’s Com mitt ee fir mly be lie ve s th e ca us e of em ploy men t eq ual ity 

fo r th e ha nd icap pe d wou ld be se rv ed by pa ss ag e of H.R. 827.

Co rdial ly,

Melvin J. Maas, Ch airm an .

May 13, 1963.

Re Hou se bill H.R. 827.

Me. Oren Harris,

Chairman, House Committee on I nte rstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Sir : I t is my under st an din g th a t th e Su bc om mittee on T ra nsp ort ati on an d 

A er on au tics of th e Com mitt ee on In te rs ta te an d For ei gn Comm erc e will ho ld 

hea ri ng s to beg in on Ma y 14, 1963, on H.R. 827 which prop os es to re la x th e 

pr es en t re qu irem en ts of th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mm iss ion go ve rning th e 

minim um ph ys ic al re qu irem en ts of dri ver s in in te rs ta te com me rce . Th ese 

ch an ge s are of vit al im po rtan ce to th e sa fe ty of th e ge ne ra l dri vi ng pu blic an d 

to th e w el fa re of th e tr uck in g in du st ry .

The bill as it now re ad s wo uld re quir e tr uck in g co mpa nies ope ra ting in in te rsta te comm erc e to hir e as dri vers th os e in di vi dual s wh o ha ve su ffered th e 

loss of a ha nd , ar m , leg, or he ar in g. As th e sa fe ty d ir ecto r of an in te rs ta te 

m ot or carr ie r, an d as a pri v ate in di vi du al . 1 m ust fir mly pro te st th is prop osed 

legi slatio n.

Th e ac cide nt, fa ta li ty , an d in ju ry ra te s in th e U nited Sta te s are grow ing 

da ily . The ef fo rts of tr uck sa fe ty me n, high way sa fe ty an d police org an iz atio ns , an d or ga ni za tion s su ch as th e N at io nal Saf et y Co uncil an d th e AAA, 

are co ns ta nt ly di re ct ed to w ar d th e re du ct io n in th e nu m be r of ac ci de nt s on ou r 

high way s. If th is bill is pa ss ed and truck in g co mpa nies are re qu ired to tu rn 

ov er big eq uipm en t to in di vi dua ls wh o m us t rely up on th e mec ha nica l fu nc tio n 

of va riou s cont ra ptions to co nt ro l th eir vehic les , man y mor e th ou sa nd s of 

inno ce nt people will be ki lle d an d ma im ed .

I plea d an d pr ay th a t ev er y mem be r of th e su bc om mitt ee an d th e Com mittee 

on In te rs ta te an d Fo re ig n Co mm erc e will ca re fu lly co ns id er th e har d fa cts th a t 

will be pr es en te d to th e co mm itt ee by th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mm ission 

Se cti on of Saf et y an d p ri vate sa fe ty org an iz at io ns , an d no t be sw ay ed by th e 

pre ss ur e gr ou ps re pre se nting th e ha nd icap pe d. The re are man y, in an y po sition s av ai la bl e in th e tr uckin g in dust ry alon e fo r th e ha nd icap pe d an d we 

hir e th e ha nd ic ap pe d in th e co mpa ny I re pr es en t, but we do not an d co uld no t 

tu rn ov er to th es e in di vi dua ls th e po wer to kill. Ove r-t he -ro ad eq uipm en t in 

in te rs ta te comm erc e to da y is by ne ce ss ity big an d he av y an d de sig ne d to 

hau l man y to ns a t high speeds. Tra gi c ac ci de nt s oc cu r eve n thou gh th e dri ver s 

of th is eq uipm en t are ph ys ic ally fit an d fu lly eq uip ped w ith al l th eir ap pe nd ­

ag es an d he arin g. The re fo re , I ask you how , in th e na me of com mo nse nse , 

Co ng res s hopes to he lp th e ha nd icap pe d by allo win g th e on e-armed , one -leg ged , 

or to ta lly dea f in di vi du al to dr iv e a vehic le, th ro ug h which mea ns th ou sa nd s 

mor e will bec ome ha nd ic ap pe d?

In my op inion th e en er gi es of yo ur co mm itt ee an d th os e of th e var io us su bco m m itt ee s sh ou ld be dir ec te d to w ar d as si st in g ra th e r th an ha m pe ring th e 

In te rs ta te Comm erc e Co mmiss ion’s Se cti on of Saf et y an d th e truck in g in dust ry 

in th eir ef fo rts to tighte n up on th e minim um ph ys ic al re qu irem en ts tr uck 

dri vers m us t now m ee t under th e m ot or c arr ie r sa fe ty re gu la tion s.

Very tr uly yo urs,

P hil ip W. Young.

(W hereu pon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcomm ittee recessed.)

o