BUS COMPETITION.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 292, 10 December 1925, Page 6

BUS COMPETITION.

We publish to-day a summary of the awaited regulations for the control of bus traffic which have been drawn up by " the Public Works Department for submission to the parties concerned. Few if any of the public will doubt that new regulations are needed. Bus competition has developed quickly and raised important questions of the regulation of traffic routes, fares, equipment, financial resourcesj and personal fitness. The proprietors of tramway systems complain that the bus competition is unfair, in that the bus companies are free from heavj- liabilities which the trams have to carry, and are not subject to the same jegulations. Bus proprietors in return complain that municipal owners of tramways have been disposed to use their powers tyrannically. As we have contended from the outset, the fact that a local body has legislative power over its rivals in transport creates opportunities for doing injustice. All the great tramway systems in the Dominion are publicly owned, and three are controlled by City Councils. The influence that the interests involved in these systems can exert on the Government is much stronger than that which bus proprietors can bring to bear, and the Government itself feels through its railways the competition of buses. There is, therefore, a danger that in the framing of regulations to govern the new form of transport, injustice may be done. In the suggested regulations it is proposed that vehicles and driver s be made to conform to certain requirements, that owners be required to insure against injury to persons and property, and that a number of Transport Appeal Boards be Eet up to settle questions in dispute. The proposed regulations about bus construction and equipment and medical examination are on right lines, though it is possible that they may be improved in detail. The public is fully entitled to expect that vehicles that ply for hire are sound in every respect, and that tliey' are driven by men in the full possession of all faculties. There is no reason why there should be'one law for tramway drivers and another for bus drivers. It is also right that passengers and others should riot be exposed to thq risk of being injured by buses owned by men of straw. It is a matter for inquiry whether the proposed schedule of insurance is reasonable. Were it not for the existence of Appeal Boards, the proposal that where a bus route is near a tram route the fares charged shall not be less than the tram fares would look like an objectionable attempt to shore up tram fares and cripple opposition. If, however, as seems to be the case, an appeal may be made to one of the Appeal Boards, there may not be much harm in it. These boards may have some important questions to decide, and it is only right that, as proposed, the bus proprietors should be represented on them.