TRANSPORT BILL DEBATE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27124, 21 August 1953, Page 10

TRANSPORT BILL DEBATE

PARLIAMENT

RIGHTHAND RULE MR MCLAGAN SUGGESTS AMENDMENT (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, August 20. The left-hand rule had many vociferous advocates, who very strongly condemned the present right-hand rule, said Mr A. McLagan (Opposition, Riccarton), when he spoke in the second reading debate on the Transport Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this evening. He would unhesitatingly agree that the left-hand rule would have been a very good rule to adopt at the beginning, but there could only be confusion — perhaps for a week or so—if a change were to be brought in now. If the right-hand rule was fully observed it would be adequate to prevent accidents at intersections, but that rule could be improved by making it an absolute rule and not a conditional one, Mr McLagan continued. The driver on the left would then have to give way to the driver on the right on all occasions. The right-hand car should have the right of way even when turning. This would avoid mutual stops and starts, which sometimes led to collisions. Mr McLagan said that in addition to signs reading “Danger, road works ahead.” others could be erected with the legend. “Danger, traffic officer ahead.” That would have a good influence in raising the standard of driving and compelling the observance of the road code. The Minister of Transport (Mr W. S. Goosman): Familiarity breeds contempt. Mr McLagan: I make the suggestion quite seriously. Mr McLagan said that the complete cutting back of hedges obscuring the driver s view at intersections and corners should be made compulsory. Mr Goosman: The counties have some powers. Mr McLagan said that power could be taken under the regulations to make that requirement compulsory. Petrol Allowance for Inspectors Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Opposition, Brooklyn) said that the Minister had not agreed to certain proposals submitted by his department to bring greater safety to the roads. The Minister had also cut the petrol mileage for his patrolling officers. No taxpayer would agree that taxation reductions should be brought about at the cost of human lives. The Courts varied on the interpretation of the offence of drunken driving, and until there was uniformity in that interpretation of the law there would be confusion and the likelihood of the law not being enforced, he said. He supported previous advocates of the introduction of blood tests for suspected drunken drivers. Mr Nordmeyer said that a clause that would be difficult to interpret was that which gave a Magistrate power to reduce a charge of drunken driving to one of dangerous driving. Mr F. L. A. Gotz (Government, Ota--11 uhu) supported the introduction of blood tests, and agreed with a suggestion that a special traffic department should be set up inside the Police Department. He said people who were accident prone should be called upon to submit to a medical examination. Mr Gotz suggested that road lines should be painted 3ft in from the extreme left side of the road, and drivers educated to ride that line.