SPEED LIMITS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 31 July 1926, Page 14

SPEED LIMITS.

THEIR ABOLITION ADVOCATED

The. North and South Island motor unions are advocating the abolition of speed limits (says the New Zealand Herald). It. is suggested that prosecutions should lie solely for dangerous driving. As long as absurd speed limits remain, this agitation will continue, and will have the support of the majority of motorists. An alternative is national revision of speed limits. Many limits were imposed in the days of horse-drawn traffic and were merely intended to prevent the owners of fast trotting turnouts from cxcrciscising their horses in dangerous places. The motor vehicle was regarded very timidly by many authorities when it entered into competition with the horse. There were instances of horses bolting on account of the noise of selfpropelled vehicles. Consequently, the motor vehicle was regarded as a machine to be kept well in leash. Experience has shown that the modern powerful 1 y-braked motor-car is as safe at 25 m.pdi. as its prototypes, were at .15 m.p.li. If every existing speed limit was enforced, motoring would be such a harassed business that every driver would rise in complaint. It is fortunate that many local bodies recognise the absurdity of their limits and allow considerable latitude. Since this leniency is an admission of the unfairness of the limit, it is hard to see why these bodies do not take a modern view and openly revise alt limits. Dozens of ridiculous local examples could be cited, but one of the most absurd is that applicable in Khyber Pass Road. A notice bearing the authority of the Newmarket Borough Council is erected near the junction of Claremont Street indicating that the limit is 10 m.p.li. Grafton Bridge has a limit of .10 m.p.li. If every driver observed it, traffic congestion would ,be even worse than at present. Some people think of speed only in round numbers. They do not consider circumstances. Actually, circumstances should be the first consideration. There are times when 40 m.p.h. is safe, yet, under certain traffic, conditions, even .10 m.p.h. m iglit be dangerous r.p the same road. It is futile to lix a limit, because 40 m.p.h. would often be dangerous, and 10 m.p.li. would usually only hamper traffic unnecessarily. Apparently some authorities assume that they are competent to strike a fair average. As long as the jioliee have adequate powers to prosecute motorists for driving to the common danger, having reference to all circumstances, there is little fairness in the retention of the majority of speed limits or in tlie acceptance of evidence of a mere excess of a speed limit as proof of negligent driving.