RED REFLECTORS

Evening Star, Issue 20033, 26 November 1928, Page 6

RED REFLECTORS

REC-ULATONS ATTACKED MOTOR CLUB’S ACTION A question which has been exercising the minds of motorists since the coming into operation of 'tho motor i emulations on August 1 last, that of the necessity for carrying a red roar rejeclor mine up in tho Polico Court this montit)?. 0 before Mr H. W. Bm.di.. S.M., wfien James Horatio Nelson was charged with having no red reflector on G. Hay. at the request of tho Otago Motor Club, appeared for tho defendant. Sub-inspector Fahey said that defendant was soon in High street at night, when ho had a red tad light, but no red reflector. Mr Hay said that tins was a tost case brought by the Otago Motor Club and other motor associations throughout Now Zealand to see if the regulation dealing with the red reflectors was a legal and proper regulation and to see if it was not ultra vires. 'Hie motor clubs and other associations had generally in tho past assisted the .Public Works Department in drawing up regulations, but in this particular case a difference of opinion had arisen, and the deportment had gone further than the motor unions considered proper and right. The regulation appeared to bo unique Tor New Zealand, for as far ns could ho fonndno other country had a, similar regulation. Jn plain words, said Mr Hay, the regulation was a. farce. The matter was of great importance to motorists in New Zealand. There were 170,000 motor vehicles in New Zealand, and ns these particular reflectors cost between 4s n ml Os each —say an average of ss—motorists would lie compelled to pay a total ol about £40,000. Unfortunately that was not ail. Motorists had a greater complaint than that, because this particular regulation was an amended regulation passed last September. Prior to that there was a regulation in force under which motorists had to have reflectors which were supposed to comply with that regulation. Manv motorists obtained such reflectors, hut under the amended regulations those reflectors were absolutely useless, and would have to be scrapped. ]u the first place, said Mr Hay, it was contended that the regulation was ultra vires in that it was oppressive and unnecessary. He said, also, that tho terms of the regulation could not bo complied with. Furthermore, Mr Hay submitted that tho regulation exceeded tho statutory power which was given by tho Motor Vehicles Act on the true construction of that Act. He then mentioned a number of legal authorities and precedents in support ot his contention. The regulations were in tho same position as by-laws, and could be held to bo unreasonable. There were two classes of reflectors, continued Mr Hay, one being the rear red reflector, to which objection was taken, and the other was really a mirror attached to the front of the car to enable the driver to see cars overtaking him. No objection, as far as ho knew, was taken to the second class. In 1015 there was an Act known as tho Lights and Vehicles Act which required that vehicles should be lighted. in 1924 tho Motor Vehicles Act was passed, and it was submitted that tho term reflector did not refer to the rear reflector at all, but to the other reflector. Ho submitted, further, that tho reflector was for the protection of the first' of two cars travelling together, which, ho claimed, was supported by the Lights and Vehicles Amendment Act of 1926. Mr Hay said it was evidently the intention of Parliament that motor vehicles should be exempt Ironi the regulation referring to the carrying of rod reflectors. Counsel submitted that the red reflector was unnecessary, firstly, because tho tail light was absolute protection, as it was extremely unusual for the tail light to go out; and, secondly, that before a red'reflector was necessary at all a. breach of the law must have been committed, as the head lights must have gone out. (Proceeding.)