ADDED TRAFFIC DANGERS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 131, 30 November 1926, Page 10

ADDED TRAFFIC DANGERS

MAGISTRATE'S FINDING

QUESTIONED

"UNSOUND SEASONS FOIt

DECISION."

The objectors to the conversion of parts of Kent and Cambridge Terrace Reserve into roadway and to the destruction of the plantation do not agree that the finding of Mr. E. Page, S.M., should be accepted as final. Tho statement issued by the objectors to-day is as follows:— There is a, sporting code which demands that the defeated contestant accept the umpire's decision, whethor right or wrong, in a good spirit, but it is nevertheless "cricket" to appeal when the umpire unwisely essays to excuse his judgment, by giving unsound reasons for his decision. For example, no one would question the protest of a batsman given "out" by the umpire because he (the batsman) had not kicked a goal. It is on thia principle that the objectors register this appeal to the final arbiter, "the public." Tho Magistrate (Mr. E. Page) who conducted tho inquiry on behalf of the Government respecting the proposed conversion into 'street of part of the recreation reserve between Kent .md Cambridge terraces has reported that tho proposal of the City Council is a proper one, and has recommended tho Government to issue the proclamation authorising the portions of reserve shown on the plan submitted to the At-torney-General to be taken for the purpose of public streets. ■ DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED. ! At the same time, the grounds which he gives for his recommendation, in the course of his report, are diametrically opposed to tho conclusion reached. This is proved by the exposition of the council's plans and proposal as elicited at the inquiry. 1. It is necessary to consider what is the council's proposal, and also what the plan referred to indicates is the conversion proposed to be undertaken. 2. The ostensible purpose of the council in converting certain portions of the reserve into street, according to the evidence tendered by the council's witnesses at the inquiry (and specifically mentioned by the Magistrato himself in the course of the inquiry) is to widen Kent terrace so as to permit of south-bound vehicular traffic (apart from the north-bound tram) to travel on both the left (east) and right (west) side_ of the tramways. 3. The adjective "ostensible" is u-ed advisedly, because the original and real object was (as disclosed by evidence given at the inquiry) not that indicated, but quite a different purposes, i.e., the parking of .motorcars. 4. There is ample proof of this in tho fact that (quite apart from tho council's own bylaws) the provision of scetion 153, caluso M, of the Public Works Act, 1908, provides a penalty for drivers of vehicles under such a scheme of traffic. It reads:— Offences on Roads.—Every person is li.ble to a fine not exceeding five pounds who does any of the following things upon a road: . . . (m) Does not keep any vehicle driven by him on the left or near . side of the road when meeting, and on the right or off side when passing another vehicle, or does not leave a reasonable portion of the road for any vehicle, person, or animal passing him. 5. Tho council's plan, submitted at the inquiry, shows that the part of Kent and Cambridge terraces abreast of the statue of Queen Victoria, is to be maintained at its full width, and not reduced correspondingly with the rest, and therefore proves the traffic congestion to be a bogy. 6. The council's advocate based his "case" for the conversion of reserve to street on the palpably unsound contention that the traffic in Kent and Cambridge terraces is so great that each of these streets requires to bo widened, whilst, at the same time, there is an official parking stand for motoi-cars along the whole length of Cambridge terrace from the Basin Reserve to Courtenay place (except 20 or 30 yards at each end), and "bowsers" for serving "gas" to motor-cars right on the footpath of Kent terrace. Verbum sat sapienti. TWO-WAY TRAFFIC SUGGESTED. 7. Though (from the very obvious advantage afforded by the double thoroughfare of dividing the traffic) neither the City Council nor the objectors, nor any of the witnesses at the inquiry suggested anything but one-way traffic on either Kent or Cambridge terraces (except the existing north-bound tramway in Kent terrace), Mr. Page reports in favour of two-way traffic in each of Kent and Cambridge terraces. Nevertheless, Mr. Page says the proposal of the City Council is a proper one. It is- patent, therefore, that his report is not based on, or warranted by, the evidenco given at tho inquiry, but on a singular opinion of his own, which cannot be endorsed by anyone with any experience of traffic management. 8. Further proof that the'verdict is not based on tho evidence given by witnesses at the inquiry is afforded by that paragraph in Mr. Page's report where he refers to the acquisition and dispositiQn of other city reserves, which is irrelevant to the question at issue— viz., the conversion of part of the Canal, Eeserve into street. 9. Another proof of tho inconsistency between the conclusion and the proof is Mr. Page's recommendation of two cross streets between Buckle street and Vivian street. Tho only reason given by the City Council for these was that there was to be one-way vehicular traffic only (each in Kent and Cambridge terraces, except for the north-bound tram), yet though Mr. Pago thinks two-way traffic in each street will eventuate, he apparently still regards the council's proposal to cut two cross streets only 300 ft apart out of tho reserve, a proper one. A PARKING PLACE? 10. It was acknowledged in evidenco that there had been a plan to-park cars in Kent terrace, but because the city advocate rested his case on the strip to bo taken off the reserve in Kent terrace as being required for southbound traffic, Mr. Page discarded tho theory of using it for parking cars, or, as one of the council's witnesses seemed to think, for a footpath. 11. A large proportion of the witnesses emphasised the increased danger that would arise from allowing southbound vehicles to pass north-bound cars on the right-hand (west) side (even if it wero lawful), one responsible witness characterising it as a "death trap," yet«Mr. Pago reports— But, with tho tram tracks in their present position, if one-way traffic is allowed over tho whole width of Kent terrace, I do (sic) think that the result will equal in danger tho conditions at present existing. I am inclined to think that, with tho increased width of both terraces, ordinary two-way traffic in each will be found to be the more suitable and convenient. Mr. Page is certairly ontitled to his personal opinion, but when, a3 a Board

of Inquiry, iie ignores the very strong evidence of experienced motorists on such a point as this, his opinion is worthy of no moro weight than that of the average man. What, it may be asked, is the reason for the clause in the Public Works Act, above quoted, if it is not to obviate danger to human life and limb, by requiring that the rule of the road be observed. The public can judge whether this is a l-ea-sonable requirement or not. It may be asked, What is the opinion of the Public AVorks departmental engineers on this point? DANGER WOULD BE ENORMOUSLY INCREASED. 12. The danger to life and limb would be so jnormously increased by the adoption of the alleged proposal of the City Council (though it is safe to assert that the conception of such a proposal would be repudiated by nearly over- one of the members of tho City Council, except, perhaps the Mayor himself) that neither the Mayor nor the council will ever dare to put the scheme into practice; because, if they did, quite apart from • their legal responsibility, they would be criminally culpable if anyone suffered fatal injury in consequence of contributory negligence through their providing such facilities for homicide. 13. A still further proof of inconsistency between Mr. Page's "reasons" and "conclusions" of his finding is tho fact that the proclamation asked for does not embrace the widening of Kent terrace at tho site of the Queen Victoria Statue. Tho absurdity of two-way traffic on Kent terrace, as predicated by Mr. Page, is apparent, unless the- reserve is narrowed right through to Courtenay place, which would also involve the abolition of the tramway siding recently put there at considerable expense. How, then, can the poposal of the City Council be regarded as a proper one?