COMPULSORY STOP SIGNS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17179, 8 February 1930, Page 10

COMPULSORY STOP SIGNS

CONSIDERED REASONABLE A question ol interest to motorists was decided in the Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch, when five motorists were charged before Mr. E. 1). Mosley, S.M., with failing to stop at a “compulsory stop” sign near a railway At the suggestion of the Minister of 'transport the prosecution was brought by the Crown, for whom Mr. A. W. Brown appeared. Mr. Brown said that the five cases were all in connection with the Harewood road crossing near the Papanui railway station. The signs were placed at various crossings in Canterbury and in other parts of Now Zealand. An Act of 1926 stated that all motorists must stop at a railway line ‘before crossing it. Apparently it was found that | tins was not absolutely necessary except I where “compulsory stop” signs were erected. At the end of last, year, said Mr. Brown, a case similar to the pre- ! sent case, came before Mr. E. C. Levs vev, S.M. It became apparent in that jense that the Canterbury Automobile i Association, who had been a prime i mover in getting the signs erected, was i not satisfied with the placing of tho i signs, and because there was a conflict iof opinion the magistrate dismissed the lease in order to bring the matter under < the notice of the authorities. Shortly j a fter the case a car was badly smashed by a train at the same crossing. Mr. Brown said it was a question of opinion as to whether or not the signs had been placed in the right place, but it did not alter the law. Holding that the signs were perfectly reasonable, the magistrate convicted and discharged tho defendants without penalty. “I think the Government is justified in erecting tho signs in the interests of tho public,” said Mr. Mosley. “There is no reason for rushing over crossings.”