UNSUITABLE ’BUS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 45, 2 December 1938, Page 5

UNSUITABLE ’BUS

CONVEYING SCHOOL CHILDREN.

RIDER TO CORONER’S VERDICT.

SEQUEL TO A FATALITY

(Per Press Association.) BLENHEIM, This Day

Returning a verdict at the inquest “that John William Barr, aged seven, died as the result of injuries to his head received in a fall from a moving school ’bus near Seddon on November 21, the Coroner (Mr E., J. Hill) added a rider condemning the fatal vehicle as unsuitable foj*„ the purpose of conveyance of young children.

The Coroner added that he could not see that the driver of the ’bus was blameworthy. If there was blame it was the method of transport of children, and there was much need for improvement. He undertook to forward to the Transport Department a recommendation that vehicles of such a type should not be licensed for the purpose for which this ’bus was used.

The evidence disclosed that the ’bus was a light delivery van with a canvas hood, but open at the back except fola 17-2-inch tailboard.

Alexander Carlyle Reilly, the driver, a son of the contractor, J. Anderson Reilly, of Seddon, said that the ’bus was occupied by 10 children between the ages of five and 13. There was no adult with them, and he was seated in the cab, entirely separated from the children, who could communicate with him only by tapping on the cab window, which was a fixture. If he needed to communicate with them he had to stop and get out. On the occasion of the accident he inadvertently drove past deceased’s gate. On pulling up, 40 yards beyond, he went to tell the children to sit still while he backed to the gate, but found that Barr, had jumped out. The vehicle was licensed by the Transport Department on October 6.

A schoolgirl aged 12, gave evidence that when the bus did 'not stop at Barr’s gate the boy threw- something out, then put his foot on the tailboard and jumped out. Nobody suggested he should do it. He was not pushed. The bus was travelling at its ordinary speed. ' The Coroner added, a rider to the Verdict drawing the attention of the responsible Department to the fact that in his opinion the vehicle involved, although licensed, was quite unsuited fop.* the conveyance of young children. That the absence of control by the driver and the open back, guarded only by a low tailboard, should disqualify such vehicle from receiving a certificate of fitness for the purpose for which is had been used. He submitted that the matter was one meriting immediate attention by revision of the system or of the regulation which permitted such vehicles to be employed, not only at Seddon but other' districts in New Zealand.