INVITATION TO TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 22802, 10 November 1937, Page 7

INVITATION TO TRAGEDY

PRESENT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY ON MOTORISTS PERMANENT MARKING NECESSARY With the statutory responsibility on motorists to be in a position to stop when approaching a pedestrian crossing, the crossings should be clearly marked. The executive of the Automobile Association (Otago) was unanimous on this point last night. “It is a matter of great importance to the public that the regulations, which have been designed for the protection of the public, who venture to cross at marked pedestrian crossings, should be strictly adhered to,” stated the report of the Safety First Committee, presented by Mr A. E. AnseH. “ The committee therefore considers it desirable that the attention of motorists should be drawn to their responsibilities and statutory _ duty at such crossings. Having this in view, we propose to focus attention on a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Great Britain in a case which is of importance to motorists. “ The defendant, in a running-down action, in the case referred to, alleged that the plaintiff (pedestrian) had been guilty Of contributory negligence, _in that while using a pedestrian crossing he emerged from behind other traffic and had continued to cross without looking to see whether the road was clear. It was held that although in some cases the defendant could plead contributory negligence as defence to a claim as a breach of the statutory duties, yet the Pedestrian Crossing Places Provisional Regulations are so framed to make it impossible for this defence to be raised in cases to which these regulations apply. “ The decision, therefore, is that there is an absolute statutory duty on the motorist approaching a pedestrian crossing not to enter thereon unless he can see that there is no pedestrian upon the crossing, or, stated in another way, the motorist cannot plead contributory negligence to a claim_ for personal injuries due to an accident on such a crossing. “ In commenting upon this one of the learned judges remarked: ‘ The case is one of great public importance, because the reality of the regulations providing for the safety of foot passengers on passenger crossings is really involved in our decision. If a pica of contributory negligence were open, in tfce case of an accident to a foot passenger on a crossing, caused to him by a motor car within the limits of the crossing, it would completely abolish that safety of the crossing which is intended by these regulations. In my opinion it is of the very essence of the safety of our streets, on the one hand, that the foot passenger public should cross the streets by the crossings, and not where there is no crossing, and, on the other hand, that at the crossings motor traffic should really recognise the overpowering obligation imposed by the passenger crossing regulation, so to check its speed that it can, if necessary, stop, in order really to give to passengers on the crossings the safety which it is intended that they should have.’

‘ ‘ The members of the Safety First Committee consider that the safety of traffic in our cities is dependent on the satisfactory enforcement of the relative rights' and duties of pedestrians and vehicular traffic, and believe that if both motorists and pedestrians realise and accept their obligations the toll of; accidents to pedestrians will be substantially reduced.” The president (Mr P. W. Breen) said his observations were that pedestrians in Dunedin were not impeding motorists, who should observe the crossings. Mr F. J. Williams said the English case had a distinct bearing on the New Zealand regulation, which went further than the English law and required motorists to be in a position to stop when approaching a crossing. However, it was only fair that the crossings should be marked.

Mr Breen; By Belisha beacons? ■ Mr Williams replied that perhaps domes could be let into the crossing or safety zones built in the centre of the crossing. The question should be taken up with the Minister of Transport. Mr Breen said it was essential that the crossing should be clearly marked. Mr E. J. Anderson said it appeared that New Zealand had only half copied the Belisha method of getting pedestrians across the streets. In England, the crossings were marked .by beacons, while in New Zealand there was an invitation to a tragedy when the visibility was poor. The pedestrian crossings at the present time were death traps. Mr Breen: Not on Monday mornings, when the paint is fresh! Mr Anderson said the entrance to tho crossing should be permanently marked. The decision of absolute for motorists made action by the Minister of Transport all the more necessary. On Mr Anderson’s motion, seconded by Mr Williams, it was decided to ask the South Island Motor Union to take up the question of the more efficient marking of pedestrian crossings.