RULES OF THE ROAD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 9 April 1930, Page 3

RULES OF THE ROAD

(To the Editor)

Sir.—As a recent arrival to this town, may I write a few words re the above. I iiave motored quite extensively in Australia and New Zealand, but the continual disregard for the rules by Nelson motorists causes me some surprise. The worst offenders are motor cyclists. I wonder if it ever occurs to others, as it does to me, that the civil law and its administration is very largely to blame, insomuch as it is not the actual breaking of the law that is punished but rather the result of the break. A man found in charge of a car while in a state of intoxication is, I notice, fined £lO. Not always is his license cancelled. If through exactly the same causo he knocks down an old lady and she is inconsiderate enough to die, he is liable to a term of imprisonment for manslaughter. Why? If the first case merited a fine only, surely the second should be treated in the same manner. The offence is exactly the same, namely intoxication. The difference in result is more or less a fluke. When a young motor cyclist cuts a corner or travels at an excessive speed and • your traffic inspector brings him to Court, why is he- left off with nothing worse than a fine of £2? The penalty is so light that he will risk repeating the offence; when he kills a little child or himself the -public mind is agitated; too late. Cutting a corner is a breach of the law, and should be corrected by a cancelling of the license for a time) whether the result is tragic or not. It is not justice to lightly regard a broken law when no injury occurs, and come down heavily when a death results. Fines are no punishment for many, and inadequate for most. Good drivers and the general public should insist that the offence, and not merely the results, should be the basis on which correction is-to be given to the careless motorist. —I am, etc.. JACK ROBERTS. Nelson, Bth April.