The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1926. THE PROBLEM OF THE MOTOR-BUS

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 98, 20 January 1926, Page 8

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1926. THE PROBLEM OF THE MOTOR-BUS

In view of the rapidly-growing popularity of the motor-bus, it is evidently very necessary that this form of passenger transport should be efficiently regulated and controlled. The Government has done the right thing in putting forward a set of draft regulations as a basis for discussion. . , The discussion for which scope has thus been afforded should be conducted dispassionately, and the aim clearly should be to establish such conditions of control as will best serve the interests of the public at large. The special interests of local bodies in their capacity as tramway proprietors and of the owners of motorbuses must take second place, though both, of course, are entitled to equitable treatment and consideration. Even those who compiled the draft regulations no doubt will recognise that these as they stand embody certain weaknesses which must be removed or amended. The whole matter will have been fully discussed before the conference which is to review the regulations meets on February 9, and definite proposals should then be put forward which will make it possible to regulate the development of motor-bus services from a broad standpoint of regard for the real interests of the public. Some portions of the draft regulations plainly are open to exception on the ground that they would extend protection ,to existing tramway undertakings at the expense of the general public. In part six it is provided, for instance, that the bus fare charged for the whole or such portion of a journey as is along or near a tramway route must be not less than the full fare for the whole length of that route. The initial aim here no doubt was to prevent buses competing only along the busier sections of tramway routes. As it is drafted, however, the proposal is calculated less to regulate bus traffic than to kill it by the imposition of crushing penalties. The insurance clause is another to which reasonable exception has been taken. It provides that the minimum aggregate amount of insurance against liability shall be £5,000 for any bus with seating capacity for ten passengers, the amount being increased by £5OO for each passenger over ten. An adequate insurance cover against liability for accident should, of course, be insisted upon, but it is going to an absurd extreme to require a minimum insurance cover of £5,000 in the case of every one of a number of buses owned by the same individual or firm. One proprietor may own a fleet of buses, and all possible contingencies may be provided for by requiring him to take out insurance cover on a reasonable percentage of the carrying capacity of these vehicles. Here, and in any other case where it is proposed to impose needlessly heavy financial burdens on the owners of motor buses, it has to be remembered that the ultimate effect of such action is to penalise the public by depriving them of cheap and efficient transport. The proposed basis of representation on the Transport Appeal Board, which is to deal with disputes arising out of the administration of the regulations, is narrow and altogether inadequate. Of the five members of the board it is proposed that one shall represent the proprietors of the publicly-owned tramways or omnibus service within the district, another the district local authorities, and a third the proprietors of motor-buses within the district. The presence on the board of a stipendiary magistrate as chairman, and of a member representing the Government, evidently falls short of giving this body the broadly independent character it should possess. If the general community is to receive fair consideration, the board must have a majority of independent members who will look at all questions of transport regulation from the standpoint of public interest. This is the cardinal requirement, but in addition it is unsatisfactory that the regulations propose that a representative of existing proprietors of motor-buses should be appointed for an indefinite period. The number of these proprietors is increasing, and the whole body should have a voice at reasonable intervals in the selection of their representative. The ruling consideration in amending the draft regulations should be that the public are entitled to the advantages arising out of the development of up-to-date and efficient passenger. transport. The fact that tramway undertakings are liable to be prejudiced by motor-bus competition supplies no reason or justification for penalising the more modern form of transport in favour of one that is becoming obsolete. The public in any case has to pay, and is entitled to the best service that can be given. The aim must be to establish fair conditions of competition, and in this connection it should be remembered that, in common with other motor vehicles, the motor-bus is now paying its full share towards the cost of making and maintaining the roads on which it runs.