SAFETY COUNCIL’S LATEST PROPOSAL

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27380, 19 June 1954, Page 6

SAFETY COUNCIL’S LATEST PROPOSAL

MAJOR ROADS

[By

ALAN HARDCASTLE]

[l]

In this and a subsequent article Mr Hardcastle discusses the Road” rule proposed by the Safety Council.

Because wide publicitjt has been given the proposal of the Road Safety Council for a “Major Road” rule, some drivers have assumed that the righthand rule no longer applies on the highways, and that these through roads are all theirs. That is not so. The right-hand rule still applies. The Major Road rule is a proposal only, and is one which, because of its controversial aspects, may not' go further, at any rate in the form favoured by the Safety Council. It is controversial for several reasons: 1. The impression that the proposal follows overseas practices and experience is incorrect. It goes far beyond them. 2. There wilFthen be three different intersection rules. 3. Highway speeds, a present main cause of accident, will be increased. 4. The belief that collisions at intersections of highways and side roads are of frequent occurrence is incorrect. 5. Side-road drivers are not, in any case, involved in a substantial proportion of highway side-road accidents. 6. Signposting of side roads will contribute nothing to a reduction of the great majority of road accidents. Absolute Right of Way The draft amendments to the traffic regulations proposed are in seven clauses. They say that when major roads ha'te been gazetted, and when all side roads thereto have been signposted, the new rule shall apply. The master clause is this (it should be attempted even by those who can understand only plain English): “Subject to clause 6a of regulation 14, clause 6a of regulation 22 and . clause 5a of regulation 25, relating to compulsory stop signs, the driver or rider of a vehicle (other than a tram) approaching or crossing a major road, to whom warning is conveyed by a sign erected as provided in the last preceding clause, and the driver or rider of any vehicle entering or about to enter a major road from a private way or entrance shall, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 6 of regulation 14, give way to any other vehicle proceeding along or turning out of the major road, and allow the same to pass before him, and if necessary for that purpose,

stop his vehicle.” Shorn of its flowing rhythm, this means that motorists, motor-cyclists, drivers of horses and push cyclists on side roads are to give way to main road drivers, whether the main road driver is going straight ahead or is turning, and (and this is vital) that the right-hand rule will have no force at intersections and junctions of “major” and lesser roads. This is new ground altogether, not merely for New Zealand, but for the motoring countries of the world. The Safety Council, however, accepted that

the Major Road Ahead rule is so we and truly proved by experience ove seas that the prospect is simple enoug The only division of opinion am« members was whether the Major Roj principle should be' applied full sea —Wellington-Auckland, Picton-Inv® cargill—or whether a trial should] made on certain stretches only. Again trial stretches, it was argued that coi fusion would thereby be caused, decision favoured trials between We lington and Petone and the Ngauraiu junction and Wanganui. The proposal is for an absolute rig] of way for Major Road drivers; b: delving in the new ground would bai disclosed that Britain, the Unfa States, Canada and Australia, for ii stance, all well experienced in t! major road principle, do not give t! main road driver a blanket right < way. They all insist that the sid; road driver has rights also. None of these cquntries envisagi side-road drivers waiting indefinite) while race traffic, for instance, goes t at 50 plus, in assurance of absofai right of way. Though the proposed New Zealai Major Road rule appears, at first rea ing, to follow closely the rules work! out through experience overseas, it really in wide departure from then These differences and their cons quences will be discussed in a lati article.

The Other Fellow’s Rights A surface reading of the N en , Zealand “Stop” sign rule J town areas may suggest that t)S main street driver has full hS! of way. The Courts say other wise. In a recent action at Hastings, Mr W. A. Harlow, SM had this to say of main street drivers: “A cross street driver is obvi. ously at a marked disadvantage in that he restarts in low. gear and is as a rule powerless to attain a speed that would enable him to evade the quences of the actions of an arrogant main street driver who is fast approaching on his left “Even at the Court hearing the defendant gave the impression that, in his opinion, the presence of cross street traffic likely to cause any impediment of his victorious progress down the main street was so improbable that it could confidently be disregarded “I do not know, and need not pause to inquire, what defendant was doing or thinking about at the crucial time. The plain fact is that he failed in the primary duty of any road-user, to keep a look-out to his front, and no regulation can excuse him from that.” Besides a fine, the defendant lost his licence for a month.