Mr Lee on Pedestrians

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21806, 11 June 1936, Page 12

Mr Lee on Pedestrians

A light and cheerful assertion of the pedestrian’s right to dream on the public highway was made by Mr J. A. Lee in the debate on the second reading of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill. Mr Lee revealed himself as a talented champion of the pedestrian, whose lot, he felt, had become hard and perilous in this motor age. There is, of course, nothing contemptible in the pleasant pastime of dreaming, )aut like many of life’s most enchanting indul-

gences, it may be favoured and practised in some places, but not in others, and it is plainly necessary that the dreaming pedestrian—in fact the pedestrian of any kind—must be subject to certain restrictions in all areas where the law declares that motorists, cyclists, and others share the rights of the highway with him. The true dreamer, if he had proper love for his hobby, would not deliberately choose Lambton Queen street, or the Bank of New Zealand corner as the most fitting place to set colourful fancies chasing each other’s tails through his mind. The discriminating dreamer should surely prefer the hilltops, public parks, country roads, anywhere that he would have a fair chance of not being startled by the devilish peremptoriness of a motor horn. Although it is not just to suggest that a pedestrian should be either among the quick or the dead, it is reasonable to say that every pedestrian should be just as aware of his responsibilities in traffic as the motorist is compelled to be. Mr Lee may be the exception, but there must be few compulsory pedestrians who do not see the alluring vision of a shining car to belong to them when “their ship comes home.” Many must think of that as the private soldier thinks of the Field Marshal’s, baton which is supposedly hiding in the corner of his knapsack. As a potential motorist, then, he should be as considerate as he would wish other pedestrians to be to him in those grand days when he will save shoe leather at the expense of tyres. The apparent fault in Mr Lee’s case is that he wrongly classifies pedestrians as an exclusive class; but the pedestrian is really a creature of change; one day he may be a cyclist, and another he may be at least riding in a motor-car. The motorist, too, must sometimes tread the highway. Mr Lee knows these things, but he kept that knowledge in the background while he treated the House of Representatives to a refreshing display of humorous sentimentality. He knows that there must be restricting rules in every decently controlled community, and it is not too much to ask that pedestrians should make trifling sacrifices of liberty in the cause of preserving their own lives.