THE BUS REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19328, 15 May 1926, Page 14

THE BUS REGULATIONS.

MR. COATES AND CRITICS. INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC. EXISTING CONTROL OF TRAMS. • INSURANCE AND LICENSING. [CV TELEGRAPH. —FEES 5 ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Friday. The alarm which has been created in the minds of has proprietors by the issue of the- new regulations litis been fieelj expressed during the past week. The Prime Minister to day replied to criticism which has been levelled at the new conditions. " If the Government is in the position of an arbitrator charged to hold the middle course between conflicting interests,'' he said, "then it would appeal that it has earned the encomium of a successful arbitrator by succeeding it) pleasing nobody. Some of the criticisms levelled at the regulations arc hardly justified. An impartial examination will indicate that the dominant purport is to safeguard the interests of the general public, and as far as possible the actual working but of any restriction is left, to the people themselves, represented by the local licensing authorities. r lhc principle involved has been, as far as possible, to let the central government stand pside. to create the necessary powers, but to leave the authorities of local government! to put them in force.

" The unnecessary duplication of services is a national waste. The moneyinvested in tramways in New Zealand is approximately £6,000,C00, and of this the , greater part' is municipal indebtedness, for which nearly half the population of New Zealand is responsible. Are not these people to be assisted to preserve an asset which has cost them so much and which, irrespective of motor transport, is a really necessary part of the transportation system of the people ? " Investigations in other countries where similar problems have arisen have led to tjie conclusion that the tramways are an essential part of the life of the modern city, and the suggestion to scrap tramways entirely and turn to buses altogether for public transport is impracticable. The Present Position. " There are about 200 buses running in Auckland and this is considered bypeople who are in close touch with transport- problems to be just about twice the number required in conjunction with the existing services, to adequately cater for the travelling public. What is the reEult? Unfair competition, racing for passengers and lack of co-ordination, unnecessary wear and tear of roads, streets and vehicles, and non-payable loading. Buses have been running longer in Auckland and these features are more noticeable there, but they are beginning to force themselves upon the notice of the public even in Wellington. Arc the above features in the interests of the general public ? "Before a tramway could start running an Order-in Council and a multitude of provisions had to be complied with, while up to the present time buses have not been subject to proper control. There is no Order-in-Council and no proper regulation or inspection, simply freedom to do what they like, go where they like and when they like. "Tho regulations are not so harsh as alleged. It is only the pirate bus—that is, the one that picks up and sets down passengers on a tramline —that must charge 2d more than the tram. The arrangement in England where omnibus services partly overlap the tramway routes is that omnibuses shail confine themselves to long-distance passengers, leaving the trams to deal with local traffic. This is effected by requiring omnibus proprietors to give an undertaking, precedent to the grant of the necessary license to plv for hire, to discoui--ge the use of omnibuses • for short journeys over tram routes. The terms of .the undertaking vary widely throughout, the country, but usually take fhe form of an agreement to charge a Tare in excess of the trains where the omnibuses compete with the trams. In Leeds a fare is charged of not less than 2d in excess of the tram fares. How, in the face of these facts, can the regu lations be accurately said to be unfair, unsportsmanlike and un-British. Two Classes of Pi.isk. There appears to be a considerable amount of apprehension about the insurance provisions, which, in fact, cover two classes of risk. Firstly that of injury to passengers within a bus, and secondly that of injury to life or property in other resp- "ts, such as arises upon collisions. Provision against the former risk is generally recognised as being tho duty of every carrier of passengers. In tho case of the Government railways or tramway enterprises conducted by- local bodies the question of the solvency of the owner has never arisen. With the advent of new means of transport by the enterprise of private individuals without corresponding financial backing, the question has already become acute. To suggest that some carriers of passengers must furnish insurance while others are to lie regarded as sufficiently financial to leave the injured passenger to his recourse against the omnibus proprietor's own fund:; would involve the making of invidious distinctions and throw a burden more or less serious upon the small proprietor in comparison witk the large concern. The princinle of insurance therefore applies to all bus proprietors alike, with the exceptfon of local authorities, which can have recourse to' tho public bv means of rates.

" As regards the second class of risk, generally known as the third party risk, it has lone; been recognised by the prudent motorist as a fit subject, for an insurance policy. The regulations only make compulsory what is generally regarded as in the best interests of the motor vehicle proprietor himself. Bus proprietors have already admitted that the insurance -provisions arc not oppressive. The Appeal Boards. "With regard to appeal boards, each board must consist of (1) an impartial chairman; (2) n representative of the omnibus proprietors; (3) a representative of the tramway authority; (4) a retirefientative of local authorities, not otherwise represented (5| a Government nominee It is di ficnlt to see how the board is weightc in favour of the Government.. If a license is refused cotnpenration must be paid. "Where the-/-i is competition between the Government and a private bus, say on the Hutt Road. is any interested party going to n .sk t L<- licensing authority to refuse a license and reully gef no benefit, and in addition 1;s_v local authorities open to a claim for compensation '' In most of the criticisms so fur offered particularly those coming from motor omnibus interest#, there has I a tendency to ignore the rights of compensation eonferred by the regulations. [( nn ' reasonably be anticipated thai, (liege rights will operate in two directions ThX will ensure that the rnotoi omnilnis proprietor whose business on any particuhr route is taken nwav will not,' ), 0 ' showed to suffer pe.cuni.'iiilv for a step considered necessary in the general interest. p, ir . ther, the liability to pay compensation may be expected to exercise a restraininginfluence upon nnv tramway authority which might otherwise, be inclined to claim nn exclusive control of 1 rattle which wis not fairly warranted by the circumstances."