Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, JULY 22nd., 1927. MOTORISTS’ CONFERENCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 July 1927, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, JULY 22nd., 1927. MOTORISTS’ CONFERENCE

The resolutions passed at the conference of representatives of the North and South Island Motor Unions, held at Wellington this week, should, for the most part, meet with general support. The delegates were apparently imbued with the ideal of removing the present defects of the traffic system, and the lessons taught by experience were not ignored. The proposed Dominion campaign to in crease the safety factor must prove beneficial, as motorists, themselves, by taking action against those in their ranks, who prove to be irresponsible, or callous, can do most to minimise tragedies and mishaps. The proposal to abolish local speed-limits is, however, somewhat drastic, even allowing that most of these regulations are impracticable, and are broken daily by most drivers, Another resolution unlikely Io become, legislation, was that advocating where a person was convicted of converting a motor car to his own use, but not so as to be guilt.v of theft, there should be no fine, but minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment. Some cases of these illegal borrowings deserve little mercy, but many are the results of thoughtlessness rather than malice, and imprisonment for a first offence would be too stern a penalty.

The insurance factor is increasingly important where motoring is concerned, and the Conference sought to place this on a more business-like footing, It was decided to ask the Government Io amend the Act making a motorist who gives a pedestrian a free ride, not liable for any claim for death, or for any injuries sustained by the pedestrian in the event of an accident occurring; and to provide that all persons partaking of a ride in a motor car shall' do so at their own risk. There can be no serious objections to this proposal, provided that exception is made in the case of an accident due to lhe motorist’s own carelessness or negligence. It is not fair that a motorist whose kindliness of heart prompts him to give a lift to a tired pedestrian, often a stranger, should be liable for heavy damages, should the “guest” be injured or killed during the free ride, even if the driver was in no way responsible. The present law makes motorists cautious about being good Samaritans.

Another “insurance” item approved was one of compulsory insurance by a motorist against all forms of third party risks. This would safeguard the public against that type of driver who has no assets upon which an award for damages could be realised. Very often, it is the motorist without

money or insurance. who is th? speed-fiend, and it is added hard luck when one is injured by such, and the jury’s, or other, award of damages cannot lie enforced, lhe only alternative to the Conference’s “compulsory” proposal, is to make all non-motorists take out a comprehensive insurance policy against drivers. There is. of course, no prospect of that being generally approved, except, perhaps, by the insurance companies. The other resolutions passed by the Conference were mostly matters for motorists themselves, and little opposition from the general public is likely. It will take time to securcperfeet administration of traffic, but every reform brings it nearer. The increase in the use of cars continues annually, and whilst good work' is being accomplished, there are faj’ too many mishaps and casualties. It is difficult to believe that human carelessness .is not chiefly responsible for this loss of life or limb, and the first duty of the organisations acting on behalf of motorists is to strive to suppress such foolishness. No resolution urging that the irresponsible driver, drunk or sober, should be very severely dealt with, appears to have been passed by the Conference, although its members would scarcely claim there is no need for more severity against such offenders.