Taxi bill not popular

Press, 17 November 1976, Page 2

Taxi bill not popular

PA ’ Wellington The Ministry of Trans-; )M>it said yesterday that! it did not support the Taxi Drivers’ Safety - De-; vice Bill as it stood. In its submission to the; Select Committee on Road; Safety, the Ministry said, however, that it would] recommend any amendment to the regulations which would facilitate the wider use of suitable safety- devices by drivers. The Ministry said the bill as drafted was at variance with regulations now in force. Regulation 28 of the Passenger Service Vehicle Construction Regulations states that no alteration may oe made in the design or construction of a passenger service vehicle, and regulation 43 of the traffic regulations provides that no vehicle may carry a warning device other than for “reasonable traffic warning.” Any proposals on the use of devices such as screens, shields, or audio - visual

.alarms, would have to take into account the effects on ■comfort and safety of passengers. The Commissioner of Police (Mr K. B. Purnside) ■ told the committee that although the use of safety devices in taxis was strongly supported, the police were not sure that the bill was the right answer. In the [police submissions to the [committee, Mr Burnside said several organisations, including the police, were able to assist any safety or crime prevention promotion, without the need for a statutory board such as proposed in the bill. Mr Burnside said it could be suggested that because the taxi industry must ultimately be responsible for its own safety promotion, it could create its own norv statutory board to achieve the same object. The police, he said, were reluctant to recommend the creation of a large and possibly cumbersome statutory board to deal with the safety interest of one relatively small industry.