Traffic Signs

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29067, 2 December 1959, Page 16

Traffic Signs

For the second time in a few weeks the Courts have found grounds for declaring prosecutions void because traffic signs did not conform to rules prescribed in the Traffic Regulations. Early last month Mr Justice McGregor in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North ruled that, because a compulsory stop sign did not conform with the regulations, proceedings could not be taken for a breach of them. In the Magistrate’s Court at Pukekohe charges of speeding brought against 49 motorists were all dismissed after the Magistrate had held that the 30-miles-an-hour sign north of Mercer was on the wrong side of the road Traffic signs serve vital purposes. The measure of control they impose promotes the safety and convenience of pedestrians and drivers. They are part and parcel of road safety measures. They also restrict the use of the roads; in a sense they infringe freedom of passage on the highways. This is the chief reason for the Courts’ insistence that where the authorities take it upon themselves (even for the best of reasons) to interfere with the freedom of the citizen on the roads, the authorities must abide by the provisions of the law scrupulously and in every particular. A second reason is the desirability of having uniform signs throughout the country—signs that the motorist or pedestrian can see instantly and comprehend as quickly. Local authorities which are entrusted with the responsibility for erecting road signs should not find it too difficult to construct them properly. The regulations give clear guidance; and the Transport Department’s advice, where it is needed, is readily obtainable. Many authorities have been lax. In Christchurch until • recently parking space on some streets was reserved wrongly and by unauthorised signs for the use of doctors. If the letter of the law on pedestrian crossings is observed the spirit is hot. Regulations gazetted in 1956 required the controlling authority to light every pedestrian crossing so that at night the crossing and pedestrians on it could be seen from 100 ft away. It was decided, however, to defer implementing the regula-

tions until the relevant authorities had had reasonable time to light their crossings. Much remains to be done after three years. Convinced of the value of pedestrian crossings in hours of darkness, the transport committee of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce recommended that' the Minister should be called on to implement the 1956 regulations. He should certainly do so before next winter. Local authorities should not wait for compulsion, still less to be corrected by the Courts, before lighting their pedestrian crossings adequately.