ROAD SIGNS

Grey River Argus, 6 December 1938, Page 8

ROAD SIGNS

DIVERSE OPINIONS At S.I.M.U. Meeting A very considerable part of the time at yesterday’s quarterly meeting of the South Island Motor Union was occupied in discussing i - oad signs, and the discussions revealed a wide divergency of views on the part of members as to the necessity for further increasing the number of signs authorised for roads in the Dominion. The most prolonged discussion took place on the proposal to introduce a ten mile per houi’ speed limit sign for blind intersections where roads of minor importance, carrying a limited amount of traffic, junction with densely trafficked main highways. The proposal had been made by the Transport Department.

The Secretary (Mr P. Harvey) said that the executive-had considered the matter, and felt that it should be left to the Union for an opinion. Mr A. Grayson (N.1.M.U.) said that his Union had rejected the proposal by 7 to 1, of a proposal -to try the “major road ahead” sign until September 30 next.

Mr F. W. Johnston (Canterbury), criticised the Transport Department’s interpretations of legal decisions. The right hand rule applied when a motorist came on to a major road whether there was a sign or not. They should stick religiously to the right hand rule until major roads had been declared. The proposed sign would double -the number of accidents on major highways. The chairman (Mr W. R. Carey) said he appreciated Mr Johnston’s views, but although the Road Code was not strictly based on legal definitions, it asked that in changing dire tions, motorists should give way Mr S. G. McClelland (Southland) said that prior to major road signs going up, there were a lot of accidents, but in Southland there had not been one accident since tney were erected. The chairman said that some held that qualification weakened the right hand rule, but he felt that clarification of the rule would make the position better. Mr Johnston: There are so many notices that the exception will swamp the rule. Mr D. H. Thomson (North Otago), said that only one Magistrate, Mr Lewy, insisted on the right hand rule. Some Magistrates took the , opposite view.

Mr R. P. Furness (Marlborough), said that the Magistrate in his district had given a decision against the right hand rule, and had told him that he did not regard it as absolute. Mr Johnston: Well, it all depends on the circumstances and facts. Dr. S. A. Gibbs (Nelson) moved that the Union fall into line.with the North Island Union in holding over the matter for 12 months. Notices of this kind, in his opinion, encouraged accidents, but major road signs had the opposite effect.

Mr Johnston seconded the motion, and said that they had to have something more than major highways in name only. Mr R. Wilson (South Canterbury), said that the North Island decision was in line with the decisions in 3J. important countries, where main roads had priority. That should be good enough for New Zealand. The motion was adopted.

CROSS ROAD SIGNS. The Canterbury A.A. forwarded a letter containing a resolution that symbol signs be erected on all main highways to indicate dangerous intersecting roads. Mi’ J. S. Hawkes, said that there were to be two signs on either side of the road, as they were more easy to pick up. The transport men had approved of them, because one sign might be obliterated by traffic. Every intersecting road on a main highway should have a symbolic sign. Dr. Stanley Brown (Southland), opposed the suggestion. The question of major roads was introduced in all discussions, but the general opinion was that major road signs were necessary. They must have speed on the main roads, because without it they could get nowhere . Mr Hawkes: Would you suggest that cars be allowed to go at 60 miles per hour ? Mr Johnston: Certainly,' on major roads. Mr R. Wilson (South Canterbury), supported Dr. Brown, and said that with, symbol signs on the main highways, tfyey would have a funeral pro-1 seccicn stretching from Picton to the] Bluff. There was no reason to slow

down all major road traffic. Mr C. M. Rout (Nelson), said that he believed in warning the main road traveller when he was coming to. a dangerous intersection. It was better to prevent an accident than to argue afterwards. Dr. Brown had exaggerated to a great extent, and most associations were erecting symbolic signs on the main roads. On some long stretches a motorist could travel safely at 60 miles per hour, but when he came to a side road, ana did not know that a man was coming out of the other road, then the speeding car would crash right into it. If warned, the main road traveller would keep his car under control and would play for safety. Mr P. M. Breen (Otago), said that the whole point was as to where the signs should be put up. In Otago they accepted a main highway as a major road, and erected small symbol signs at all places. Mr Johnston: We are going to put up a record for inconsistency. We have just said that we’re going tp put up major road signs. We are simply going to defer the day of the major road if we are going to clutter up the roads with signs.,, Mr Hawkes said that the law said that a man had to keep a proper look out, and that was very necessary at the cross roads. The motion was carried.

CONTROLLING SINGS. On behalf of Canterbury A.A., Mr Hawkes moved a remit that no signs be erected without first being approved by the Transport Department. There was need for some control in the erection of signs, he said. They could mislead the public by erecting signs not in accordance with regulations. What were regulation signs in other countries, need not be confirm-

ed in the same way here. It had been argued that signs erected had to remain. Mr Morris seconded the remit. In reply to Mr Fairbrother, Mr Hawkes said that major roads were not mentioned in any regulation. Mr M. C. .Fairbrother (Southland', said that such signs as ‘detour signs were "necessary, and with the delay that was likely, motorists would not have the benefit of their use. Mr Hawkes said that in that case they might just as well put signs over every creek on the Otira road. ' The chairman (Mr W. R. Carey): It might be just as well. It is quite desirable to put up signs in places like that.

Mr R. Wilson (South Canterbury) said that if they had to go and ask the Transport Board for everything, they would be giving up their own rights.) Many signs in Canterbury did not, conform to regulations. The chairman: Then where are we? Mr Wilson: If we go cap in hand to the Minister, he will in the end decide to do all things himself without referring them to us. Commonsense is needed on the part of Associations. Mr C. J. Talbot (Main Highways Board), supported Mr Hawkes, and said that matters had to be put in order. It was desirable' that those who studied transport signs should have the opportunity of hew signs. Mr A. Grayson (N.1.M.U.), said that whilst it was necessary to have uniform signs, he would hesitate to ask the North Island Union to adopt this suggestion. A committee of the Union could more adequately Jieal with the matter.

Mr Johnston said that his only objection to the Transport Department was in its interpretation of judicial decisions. Apart from that there was no need to be afraid. Mr P. W. Breen. (Otago),-suggested that the remit be amended to refer all new signs to the Union’s Executive. Mr C. M. Rout (Nelson) said that he could not support the remit, nor Mr Breen’s suggestion. There were occasions when flooded rivers made it necessary to erect signs without delay; Did they have to get someone to approve in that case ? The thing was absurd, for surely an Association had enough sense to put up a proper sign. They should not bother the Union, and’ least of all, the Transport Department. Mr Breen said that he referred only to .signs apart from directional or emergency signs.

Five voted in favour of the remit, and it was heavily defeated. A Southland remit that it should be compulsory for all cyclists to carry rear red lights at night was introduced by Mr M. C. Fairbrother, who said that his Association had no desire to increase the cost to the cyclist out of proportion, but thought that all road users should contribute to safety on the mads. Mr G. S. Moiris (Canterbury), said that red roar reflectors were quite safe if properly fitted. They might as well insist jn pedestrians having rear red lights. The remit was defeated by 8 votes to 7.

Learners’ Signs PROPOSAL NOT ACCEPTABLE. The meeting dealt with a letter from the South Canterbury Association, which stated that it had been asked for an opinion as to the advisability of using the proposed “L” signs for learner-drivers. < ' . The secretary (Mr P. Harvey) pointed out that the Transport • Department had supplied figures stating that the number of accidents last year involving drivers with three months’ experience or less was 116, whilst the number of accidents involving other drivers was 2,851. Mr P. W. Breen (Otago), said that his Association considered the signs unnecessary because most of the accidents involved people why had been driving for years. Learners on the other hand, took particular care in their driving. Mr C. M. flout (Nelson), said that so long as a learner had a competent ! driver with him, he was safe. Inj England the position was different,! and the opportunity to introduce learners’ plates did not exist under! the regulations. They could be used| as courtesy signs, and drivers who were either learners or were timid could use them if they pleased. The Union must give an opinion, and the view should be held that plates are unnecessary. Mr F. W. Johnston (Canterbury), said that if they had “L” plates they must also have “O” plates for the old men and women drivers, who were really past their driving ’ stage, and whose nerves were beyond them.

Dr. Santley Brown (Southland): What about “N” for those who should never drive ?

Mr C. J. Talbot (Main Highways \J3oard) pointed out that nowadays with increased density of traffic, high powered cars were a distinct menace in the hands of incompetent drivers. The learner would not impose on the “L” sign, but would have greater confidence, and the sign would secure more tolerance for him. He asked the meeting to consider both sides of the question. Mr J. S. Hawkes (Canterbury), said that it was not necessary for every learner to use the “L” sign. The learner-driver was not proficient in some things—not knowing enough about hill driving or the regulations for . example. They might take a month or two to become proficient, and that was the Safety Council’s idea in making tne suggestion. ’’The chairman (Mr W. R. Carey), outlined the North Island Union’s aecision, and stated that with the exception of the Wellington A.A., the proposal had been opposed. Mr A. Grayson (N.1.M.U.), said that in England when the sign was used, the driver had a licensed driver with him, but here it was proposed! to give a person the plate and let*him loose on the roads. To do so would greatly increase the danger to other road users. They should be made to qualify under competent drivers. Mr H. C. Harley (Canterbury), said that eventually they would have cars as well as rQads cluttered up with I signs. They could agree with the North Island Union that the sign was an unnecessary addition. Mr A. Donaldson (Canterbury), said that a driver in Christchurch might not require an “L” sign but when he went to Dunedin or Wellington it might be necessary as he would need to learn to drive ovbr hills. Mr S. G. Morris said that there seemed to be confusion over the sign. If the proposal meant more care he would favour it, but the new defini-

tion which had been offered made him oppose it. That no one had shown where New Zealand and English conditions were identical was pointed out by Dr. S. A. Gibbs (Nelson), who opposed the suggestion. Mr Rout said that the explanation of members of the,'Safety Council was appreciated. Their explanation only confirmed the views of those opposed to the idea.

Mr R. P. Furness (Marlborough),* said that one rule for Christchurch and another for somewhere else was x most'.undesirable, because people had plenty of opportunities to drive under the same conditions. There 'should be no haste in issuing driving licenses because no man who was not competent on hills should have a license. Mr Harley moved ’ and Mr Morris seconded that the meeting do not consider that the application of the <I L” sign to New Zealand is necessary at present. , The motion was carried, and it was decided to write to South Canterbury expressing appreciation of their action in referring the matter to the Union for decision.