MOTORS AND RAILWAY CROSSINGS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 57, 1 December 1923, Page 6

MOTORS AND RAILWAY CROSSINGS

AIMING AT GREATER SAFETY

RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL BODIES

By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, November 30.

The protection of traffic at railway crossings was the subject of a remit before the New Zealand Motorists’ Conference to-day.

Mr. L. A. Edwards (Wellington) said he thought it would be agreed that there was no greater danger than the railwav crossing, particularlv in view of the' rapidly increasing number of heavy commercial vehicles. In his opinion the protection of motorists by artificial means, besides being costly, was not correct, as it threw too much resoonsibilitv. on the Government and it did not educate motorists on the right lines. He thought that wherever possible all obstructions to tho view of motorists should be removed, and that tlfe conference should aporoach the local bodies, who had full oower to do this. He moved: “That wherever necessarv local bodies be approached and requested to remove such obstaclbs as may be considered dangerous at level crossings.” Mr. F. W. Johnston opposed the motion, stating that the conference dirl not have anv chance of its being taken un bv the local bodies. They did not create the level crossings, and it was wrong to put the responsibility on them. The general manager of -railwavs had stated that it would cost £1.500.000 to , provide safetv devices at all crossings, but this was not necessarv. If 1000 of the worst crossings were attended to properly it would meet the case. He suggested the provision of runways at dangerous crossings. Mr. H. Halliday (Otago) supported Mr. Johnston's views. Mr. A. J. Toogood (Wellington) said that when manv of the crossings were made the average speed of traffic was about eight miles an hour; now it was about twenty miles an hour. But the. Railway Department did not seem to view the question from this aspect or to realise that what would do for traffic of a speed of eight miles an hour would not suffice in,the present circumstances. He urged that the conference should confine its request to asking tho Department to cut back some of the most dangerous crossings. Mr. Edwards said it seemed as if the principle underlying the remit was approved bv all. and the Question had resolved itself into what body should be responsible. The duty was on the local bodies. and the common-sense view for the conference to take was to put, the reauest to the responsible people. The motion was carried. A further motion was moved by Mr. Johnston as follows: “That this conference is of opinion that it is not solely the duty of the local authorities to safeguard the travelling public at local crossings bv the removal of obstructions: and that we confer with the Municipal and Counties’ Conferences with n. view to impressing on the Railwav Department and on Parliament the Railwav Department’s duty to safeguard the public at these crossings., and that the necessarv authority should be obtained bv the Department to deal with this matter,” Mr. H. Holland (Otago) seconded the motion. Mr. Johnston said he could not help thinking that the general manager (Mr. McVillv) was unsympathetic towards the travelling public, and that he did not appreciate the position. The motion was carried.