Assessing Fitness To Drive:
Commercial Truck Driving and
People who are Deaf/hard of hearing
Prepared for:
National Transport Commission
Vicroads
Audiological Society of Australia
Prepared By:
Melissa Lowrie, Manager, Deaf Victoria
Victoria’s Deaf and hard of hearing community is a large and vibrant community. There are a number of Deaf and hard of
hearing people who have chosen Truck Driving as a career and have successfully gained long-standing employment.
We became aware of the issue of the medical assessment of fitness to drive in relation to Deaf and hard of hearing people
in April 2012, when two deaf truck drivers approached Vicdeaf, and later Deaf Victoria for assistance in their search for
truck driving work.
Vicdeaf is Victoria’s peak service for deaf and hard of hearing people, and Deaf Victoria is the information and advocacy
service for Deaf people.
Andrew* was working as a truck driver in England for over 13 years. He recently relocated to Australia with his partner and
was seeking truck driving work. He has a Heavy Combination licence and is more than qualified for the many jobs he
applied for. In all instances, the employer has said they are happy to employ him providing he passes the medical review. In
every medical review he has gone for, he has failed because his hearing loss only hits 35 db, aided. Only 5 db short, and his
whole career as a truck driver means nothing. Andrew has been having terrible trouble finding work.
Jamie* is also a truck driver, driving in excess of ten years. He has gone for interviews at least once a week and has been
given the same answer as Andrew- the employers are happy to employ him, as long as he passes a medical test. As his
hearing falls short of 40db, he also cannot find work.
Deaf Victoria held a forum, as once these clients came to light; we put out a message to the Deaf and hard of hearing
community to see who else was having trouble. In 24 hours we were contacted by 25 extremely worried truck drivers, who
were either too scared to attempt to find work elsewhere or worried about being asked to take medical assessments due
to the tightened restrictions. All these 25 people have impeccable records and it is grossly unfair to subject them to the
very real risk of losing their jobs, when their performance is exceptional and never been questioned.
On reviewing the Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines as released by the National Transport Commission, I acknowledge
that this rule has been in place for many years, however it is not until now that the medical review has been tightened that
this rule has really taken affect and this is the first time that our clients have started to experience problems gaining
employment as truck drivers.
I also acknowledge that these rules are guidelines, however I feel it needs to be expanded on, as I have not seen any
evidence proving that Deafness qualifies as being ‘unfit to drive’ in any case. There is no difference from a person with
normal hearing driving a truck with the music up full blast. They will have the same incapacity of being unable to hear their
surroundings. If being unable to hear is a true incapacity affecting the ability to drive, it would be illegal for radios and
sound systems to be installed in commercial trucks.
I urge the National Transport Commission to consider this in earnest and ensure that there is a process in place to allow
fairness in assessing fitness to drive and the ability to perform the task of driving a commercial truck.
Clients
My clients hold a range of licences from Heavy Rigid, Heavy Combination and Multi Combination, which they have all
passed and have had experience ranging from 2 to 27 years of driving without incident. Interesting to note that not one of
the drivers have ever had an accident caused by their inability to hear. Each of their employers has never had an issue with
their deafness that they are aware of. It is only now that they cannot pass their medical review that it is being called into
question. Employers are starting to change policies and require regular medical reviews, and it is now that the Deaf/hard of
hearing employees are becoming increasingly concerned about their job security.
Currently to train to get their licence, Deaf and hard of hearing people are able to obtain a licence, but the medical review
assesses them as ‘unfit’ to drive commercial truck.
Safety Risks and suggested modifications- suggested by truck drivers themselves
Deaf Victoria held a forum to discuss with the Truck drivers the potential safety risks that may stop them from driving
commercial trucks. There were not many concerns or issues that were raised; however some of the modifications that
could be fitted onto their vehicles are as follows:
-
Extra mirrors to see back of truck
-
Regular checks of the engine, which should be done as a part of protocol in the employment of any truck driver,
Deaf or not.
-
Rear vision camera at the back with video in the cabin
-
Two way radio: this system can be replaced by a system similar to the taxi drivers system that can be operated by
depot. Some drivers are currently using iPhones that are positioned next to their GPS to enable them to see
when the message is received and pull over to read and answer. They have stated that this system is working
well.
Recommendations:
Option one- A clause to be put in the guidelines to ensure that the risks and requirements of the job are assessed if the
40db rule is not met
A clause to be put in the guidelines stating that on assessing that the person has a hearing loss of 40db or more unaided,
the assessment should be judged on the duties of the job- i.e. If it is freight delivery from state to state or store to store,
the risks for a Deaf/hard of hearing person is minimal.
At the time of the request of the medical review and the person does not meet the 40db rule, the assessment should be
based on the job in question rather than the hearing loss. A workplace assessment by an occupational therapist via Job
Access can be organised to assess the work place and tasks, identify and risk and adjustments needed for the job and an
application for these workplace modifications can be made under the Employment Assistance Fund (a government scheme
that funds any workplace modifications that is required for the Deaf person to perform their job- truck modifications can
be included in this)
Option Two- An exemption procedure to be developed for the National Transport Commission
The USA has created an exemption system that I believe could be modelled by Australia’s National Transport Commission:
The USA system states that a Commercial Drivers Licence (CDL) is issued by whichever state the applicant lives in to allow
them to drive a large load capacity vehicle. However, if you want to drive a commercial vehicle between states, you must
also meet the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
The DOT rules require that you pass a full medical examination. This examination includes a requirement that the driver’s
hearing be either
1. an average of 40 dB from 500 to 2000 Hz in the better ear; or
2. a whispered voice test of not less than 5 feet in the better
Ideally the rule should be removed, however they were successful on creating an exemption to the rule for qualified
drivers. The process is as follows:
1. You fill out an application to the DOT, stating why you want an exemption for your hearing impairment. This is before a
medical examination is performed.
2. The DOT will publish your names and allow 30 days for the public provide any comments.
3. After this comment period, the DOT will then consider whether you should get an exemption. They will check your
driving record and may deny an exemption on this basis
4. If approved, you will have an exemption.
Deaf Victoria believes that the first option is the best way forward. That is, at the point of the medical review not meeting
the 40 db rule, the decision should be made based on the job requirement, an assessment on the safety of the job and any
possible workplace modifications needed to be undertaken by Job Access to be performed before the driver is labelled
unfit to drive. The advantage of the first option is it allows for anyone to, fairly, have the opportunity to pursue a career as
a Truck Driver. The second option, however, is not ideal in terms of allowing new truck drivers to find work.
We hope that this report gives you some background information for discussion.
Melissa Lowrie