RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROAD DANGERS TO INFANTS

Grey River Argus, 28 September 1949, Page 5

RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROAD DANGERS TO INFANTS

Parents or Motorists? P.A. WELLINGTON, Sept. 27. The Transport Department estimates were discussed in the House of Representatives to-night. Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat., Piako) and Mr S. W. Smith (Nat., Hobson) made complaints of a growth of what they termed a “State octopus” in road services. Mr Goosman said 43 per cent, of eight thousand transport licences in New Zealand were held by ex-service-men, testifying to the extent to which the industry h>d co-operated in making licences available to returned men. However, the State has been buying up licences wherever it could. It had done nothing to share these licences with ex-servicemen. Stateowned trucks were not subject to heavy trallic regulations, and could lake any load they liked on any road without penalty. Mr Smith said the State was “gobbling up” licences from one end of the country to the other to the detriment of ex-servicemen, and a State transport octopus was growing steadily. Hon. F. Hackett said that the heavy trucks of which Mr Goosman complained had Public Works licences. It was wrong to blame the Transport Department, which had gone out of its way to help the ex-servicemen to obtain transport licences. The Transport Department itself did not own or operate th e heavy vehicles complained of. Mr W. A. Sheat (Nat.-, Patea) said the Commissioner of Transport had recently suggested that those motorists involved in accidents with children under school age should be deemed guilty of negligence unless they could prove their innocence. That had received an unfavourable reception throughout the country. The Minister should say if the Government contemplated a change in the present law. In accidents involving very young children, blame was more likely to lie with parents for allowing the children on the streets. He suggested a more intensive safety education campaign to make parents aware of their responsibilities. Any attempt to hold motorists blameworthy would be unjust, and would cause resentment.

Mr F. Langstone (Ind. Lab., Roskill) said that the mothers would not thank Mr Sheat for his remarks. Most motorists were careful, but some thought they owned the roads, and drove at high speeds in powerful cars. The roads belonged to the people. Did the children have no rights at all? Mr W. Freer (Govt., Mt. Albert): He wants to leg-rope them! Mr Langstone said that there was need for the utmost care on the part of those driving powerful cars, and safety education should be aimed at, reminding these people of their responsibilities. Mr J. R. Hanan (Nat Invercargill) said he agreed with the contention that where children were about the highest degree of care was required of the motorists. There had been a tendency in the house to blame the parents. But he thought that, if a tendency to blame the driver was made a principle of law that more care would be exercised and accidents would be reduced.

Mr Hackett said that the department had done its utmost to eliminate reckless driving. Parents might, sometimes overlook their responsibility not to let children wander on roads.

Mr S. R- Neale (Nat Nelson) speaking as member of the roads safety council, said the council was doing an excellent job, and intended to prepare other educational films. The trend in the debate seemed to be against motorists. He thought that, a great deal of the trouble on the roads was caused by people not being aware of the fact that they were entitled to only half of the road crossing at a time. Mr Hackett acknowledged the work of the roads safety council and the North Island and South Island Automoble associations, and of the transport department in the education if the public on road safety principle. The vote was passed. The house passed several classes of Estimator bofom rislmp - at 11.50.