Under H.R. 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 that 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 that 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 that 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 majority 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 that 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 litigation 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 State regulatory agencies to be adequately insured against public liability. Uncontroverted testimony in the proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex Parte MC-40-Sub 1 (In the Matter of Qualifications and Maximum Hours of Service of Employees of Motor Carriers and Safety 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 that the largest inclusive insurer of motor carrier operations in the country would refuse to cover

any vehicle driven by an amputee. If 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 operating data pertinent to this proposal. I believe it will be helpful if he may be permitted to present his testimony at this point, so that the subcommittee will have the full picture before it as a basis for any questions, which we shall be glad to answer. (The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT ON HANDICAPPED DRIVERS BY NATIONAL 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-40, in which proceeding NAMBO participated, the following considerations are essential: 1. The driver of an intercity bus has sole responsibility for the welfare and safety 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. NEELY. However, before turning this over to Mr. Rennolds, I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that from an industry point of view it is true that we can control the people whom we initially hire but we do have a problem, which is a very serious one in my particular position, of drivers who have been employed and who become physically disqualified.

Under our labor agreement these matters, if they become disputed matters, are submitted to a medical board of arbitration.

Fortunately, our doctor who is our representative, of course has the obligation and the understanding of the medical-legal aspects facing our industry but that responsibility does not lie with the neutral doctor or the individual's personal physician.

Therefore, we have situations in a medical arbitration wherein the neutral doctor will rule the man capable of returning to driving duty and in those cases we really have only the court of last resort in the ICC regulations.

This case that I cited in my direct testimony is a case in point. This man had had several commitments, voluntary commitments, for his trouble. We pulled him out of service and the case went to medical arbitration: the third doctor ruled that he could return to work provided he did not use alcohol, that he receive 9 hours sleep at night, and that he have his wife attend with him for a periodic examination.

I felt so strongly that this man was not a man who should be driving a bus I took the position that 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 that we do need in industry what support we can gain from the ICC regulations, not so much in the initial employment as in the type of situation that may arise after 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 that 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 that 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 that 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 drivers' speeds.

In our case, we have approximately 10,000 busdrivers, that 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 that citation regardless of the disposition made by the police authority.

We also have arrangements with most of the police authorities to notify us of any citations that are issued to our men because we want to be sure that 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 that 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, appropriate disciplinary action is taken in the maintenance depart

ment.

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 that is what Mr. Hemphill is referring to, the performance of the drivers, we feel we

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 turn that 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 that particular driver because we can't very well discipline on third-party evidence. So we actually go out and check that driver very thoroughly, possibly three or four times, to pick up violations, speed violations, violations in passing, or following too closely.

Again, operating half a billion miles we cannot follow every driver every minute. Unquestionably with that 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 that explains a bit what industry does in this speed connection.

Mr. HEMPHILL. I thank you for that statement. governors set at?

Mr. NEELY. Sixty-five.

What are your

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 that 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 that 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 far 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 that 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

and direction the bus was going, we will be out there on that 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. HEMPHILL. 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 their license?

Mr. NEELY. Yes. In my work I have periodic contact with a great number of police authorities. Our position is that we do not want any special favors at all. We want our men to comply exactly with the law.

Mr. HEMPHILL. Do you believe that ought to be the law, you have the power to take their 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. HEMPHILL. 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 but 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 that 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 that might be if a light goes out and it went out en route and the driver was not responsible for that or could not have controlled it. That 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. That is the man's personal responsibility.

Mr. HEMPHILL. Thank you.