Untitled

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 138, 8 March 1945, Page 6

For some time past much public attention in Wellington has been given to the question of pedestrian rights on specially marked street crossings. No doubt there is still room for argument as to the spirit and intention of the law, but any dispute over the law’s letter appears to have been settled by the decision, earlier this week, of a Wellington magistrate who fined a motorist fpr failing to give way to a pedestrian on a crossing after remarking he was satisfied that the pedestrian “was properly on the crossing and that the motorist had not seen him in time.” There may be much debate in future cases of this kind as to the position a pedestrian must occupy before he can be deemed to be fairly on a crossing and therefore, entitled to the right-of-way it affords. However, it is unlikely that the law can be made much clearer than it is. The correct use of pedestrian crossings is a part of traffic discipline in general, and experiment over the past 30 to 40 years has indicated that such discipline is best established by a judicious combination of written law and common sense. The magisterial decision emphasizes that tiie pedestrian, under certain conditions, is entitled to the right-of-way on a crossing, but only a foolish and inconsiderate person would trade on that right so as to hinder wheeled traffic unduly. Similarly only an irresponsible motorist would deliberately endanger a careless walker. One of the most important rules of tbe road is the unwritten rule of wise compromise. Clearly it is better to be imposed upon and safe than legally in the right but in peril.