INCREASED PENALTIES FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28700, 25 September 1958, Page 7

INCREASED PENALTIES FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, Sept. 24. Motorists were more sensitive to the loss of driving licences than they were to risk of death to themselves or their passengers, said the Minister of Transport (Mr Mathison) in the House of Representatives tonight durthe second reading debate on the Transport Amendment (No. 2) Bill.

The main provision of the bill js to increase minimum penalties for driving under the influence of drink and for negligent or reckless driving. The minimum disqualification for driving while under the influence of drink will be for three years for the first offence and 10 years for a second. For negligent or reckless driving, the minimum disqualification will be one year.

For the Opposition, Mr J. K. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn) said the bill was generally acceptable although he personally opposed minimum penalties in principle. He conceded that they had been introduced under the previous Government, and said he still urged the Minister to give magistrate’s discretion to allow for “borderline cases,” suggesting that the. maximum penalties also could be increased. • The great mass of motorists will not slow down to save their own lives or the lives of their passengers,” said Mr Mathison. “But, experience shows they will slow down to save their licences.”

It might be that -there would be an increased reluctance to convict but when convictions were entered the sterner disqualification penalties .would have a strong deterrent effect The changes were based largely on experience gained in Connecticut which had been a “guinea pig” state for road safety measures. Overseas experience had shown that the threat of loss of a licence was more effective than a fine, imprisonment,. or even loss of life, said Mr Mathison. Borderline Cases Mr McAlpine said the Opposition was absolutely opposed to any form of drunken driving and was in accord with any penalties proposed. But minimum penalties were bad in principle. Since they had been introduced, the death rate on the roads had gone up. It was mad in law to have minimum penalties which made Magistrates rubber stamps. If penalties were left to the discretion of the Magistrates, this would be in accord with every other offence, except murder. Mr McAlpine suggested that the police could be reluctant to prosecute and magistrates to convict in borderline cases.

Mr McAlpine suggested that car conversion, which resulted in many accidents, should have been dealt with in the bill. He also

asked why the game of “chicken” was not dealt with. Referring to cases in Christchurch where traffic officers had been pushed from the running boards of moving cars, Mr McAlpine suggested that a minimum penalty of 10 years’ gaol should be introduced for those who deliberately endangered a traffic officer’s life. He also suggested fixing a sign such as “criminal traffic offender” to cars of motorists who committed serious offences. Finally, Mr McAlpine suggested that “dawdlers” on the roads should be put through a speed test. If they could not drive at 50 miles per hour—and many of them could not because they were afraid of their own capabilities—they should be put off the roads Powers of Arrest Mr F. L. A. Gotz (Opposition. Manukau) thought the bill should allow the Courts more discretion. When minimum penalties were fixed for drunken driving, there should be a lesser penalty for the man who was found in the back seat of a car “sleeping it off.”

More enforcement officers could be put on the roads if a shift system were adopted for traffic personnel and cars, he said.

Mr Gotz suggested strengthening of liaison between the Transport and Police Departments to locate stolen cars. He pointed out that traffic officers had no powers of arrest, except for drunken driving and the limitations imposed on traffic officers limited their service to the community.

In a brief reply, Mr Mathison said the bill dealt With the major offences only. Other questions, including conversion, would be considered by a recess committee. It was likely that its recommendations would be incorporated in an amendment to the Transport Act next year. he bill was read a second time.