TRAFFIC CASES IN COURTS

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26847, 27 September 1952, Page 2

TRAFFIC CASES IN COURTS

S.I.M.U. DISCUSSES PROSECUTIONS

The gravity of some traffic offences was not sufficiently emphasised by traffic inspectors when conducting prosecutions in Court, said Mr C. M. Rout (Nelson) at conference of the South Island Motor Union in Christchurch yesterday. The conference rejected a remit from the Automobile Association (Canterbury) about the speed of vehicles at intersections, and an amendment moved by Mr Rout was adopted in its place. Mr Rout’s amendment was that representations should be made to the Commissioner of Transport (Mr G. L. Laurenson), emphasising the desirability for his inspectors, when prosecuting traffic offenders, to draw the attention of the Courts to the seriousness of the offences. In serious cases, Mr Rout said, stiff penalties should be sought, and he thought there should be some licences cancelled. The Canterbury remit advocated that the traffic regulations should be amended to require a vehicle approaching an urban intersection to slow down and be kept under such control as to avoid colliding with pedestrians or other vehicles. There should be a complete scientific survey of all accidents, said Mr D. Forsyth (Otago). Accident-prone motorists should be given eyesight tests by experts. Mr E. C. Champion (Canterbury) said he objected to Mr Rout’s amendment on the ground that it was out of order. It was a very proper suggestion and he was in favour of it, but it had nothing to do with the remit, he said.

The amendment was then put to the meeting and carried.