Motor Accidents Caused 140 Deaths in Seven Months.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18578, 28 September 1928, Page 3

Motor Accidents Caused 140 Deaths in Seven Months.

STARTLING FIGURES DISCLOSED IN MINISTER’S STATEMENT TO PARLIAMENT.

(Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON, September 27. 44 r I ''HE motor statistics are startling,” declared the Hon F. J. A Rolleston, Attorney-General, in a statement in the House to-niglit. “In 1927 deaths attributable to accidents caused by motorcars totalled 138, and in the period of February till August of Uie following year there were 130 deaths, and in the same period 41 serious accidents likely to cause death. In addition, there were convictions for negligent driving totalling -1259 in 1920, and 5171 in 1927. There were 294 persons convicted in 1927 of being drunk in charge of motor vehicles.”

Mr Rolleston quoted these figures in moving the second reading of the Motor Third Party Risks Insurance Bill. He said that it was the duty of the State to protect the lives and limbs of citizens.

Some would say, continued the Minister, that this position could be met by stricter regulation of traffic, but he thought the more effective way of dealing with the matter was to provide a scheme for payment of compensation or damages to those injured. There had been a strong demand foi this from motor associations, farmers’ unions and other bodies. WHAT THE BILL COVERS. The Minister went on to state that the risk covered bv the Bill was the third party risk, which related to injuries or death of persons, and excluded damage to property. He could only give a very ro.gh estimate of the number of cars now covered by insurance, and it was believed 25 per cent of those on the roads were not insured. It probably would be found that the insured persons were those who had something to lose, against whom a claim could be prosecuted with success, while those uninsured would include persons with no assets, or tbosfc whose record was such that no com pany would insure them. In making comparisons between existing pre miums and those proposed for the in surance under the Bill, members should realise the fact that it was only for third party risk. It would provide an insurance for every vehicle on the roads, and even covered injuries in flic ted through accidents caused by persons driving who were not authorised to do so. “It does not matter whether it is a thief or joy-rider,” he said, “ whoever drives a car and causes an accident under circumstances which throw a liability on the driver, there is an insurance.” RISKS TO PASSENGERS. Mr Samuel (Ohinemuri) : Does it cover passengers? The Minister: It is not possible to provide for everything at once. The whole scheme was something in the nature of an experiment, and it was impossible to forecast the liability. If after a year’s working it was found possible to extend the benefits, this could be done, or the premium reduced. Passengers riding in cars were not protected. Mr Savage (Auckland West) : If there are conditions on the ticket? The Minister replied that this point had been anticipated, and he would provide against it in the case of paying passengers, but the voluntary passenger took the risk voluntarily. Several questions were asked regarding other exemptions, and the Minister replied that of course, if the House desired, he could double the premium and take out the exemptions. Mr Holland, leader of the Opposition: Have you an arrangement with the companies?

The Minister: Yes, it is in the Bill. There will be no policy or proposal. The insurance will be made before license can be issued, and the license will be the receipt. NO NEGLIGENCE, NO CLAIM. In reply to a query Mr . Rolleston said that a man owning two cars would pay two premiums. Mr Atmore: Ah! Two killing machines. (Laughter.) The Minister said that the liability per passenger in commercial vehicles was £2OOO and the total liability per vehicle was £20,000. Mr H. E. Holland: How about a case when thirty passengers are involved? Mr Rolleston: It would be pretty difficult for all thirty to be killed. Ex periencc has shown that £20,000 is a reasonable liability. In any case there would be a liability over and above that in the Bill. A man knocked down by a vehicle would have a common law claim and could get damages to any extent the court might award. The only defence to the claim would be, .first, the usual defence that there was no negligence. The Act could not cover cases where there was no negligence on the part of the driver. No negligence, no liability was the rule except in cases where the vehicle was defective. £The leader of the Opposition: What of cases where the accident was due to a defective road Mr Rolleston: Probably the claim would then be against the local authoiMr H. G. R. Mason: What if there was no negligence on either side? Mr Rolleston: If the injured man couldn’t establish his claim he couldn’t get anything. THE PREMIUMS COMPARED. “It is impossible for me to compare the premium rates in this Bill and existing rates, because existing premiums cover damage or loss in respect of property as well as personal injury, whereas this Bill covers only the personal aspect,” continued the Minister. “ There are various classes of vehicles, each with their own premium. As the Bill does not operate till next June there will be time to consider the question, but I think it can be taken that these rates are the maximum. The Bill does not operate till next June because owners of vehicles don’t paj their registration fees and premiums till next year. PRIVATE CARS ONLY £l. “ Under existing premium rates private car owners have to pay from £4 10s up to £lO 10s according to horsepower and that, of course, is in respect of both car a*nd personal risk. Under this Bill the owner of a private car will pay only £1 premium in respect of injury to the person only.” vSir Joseph Ward: What is the maximum an injured person can be paid under the Bill? Mr Rolleston: The amount is unlimited as far as private cars are concerned, but in respect of buses the limit is £2OOO per person, and there is a total limit of £20,000. I think it will be seen that this private car cover of £1 is more advantageous than the existing rate of from £4 10s upwards. Having paid his £2 registration fee and £1 premium a private car owner is covered against loss and has effected a considerable saving, also the public are protected in regard to injury by his car by whomsoever driven. There are 180,000 motor vehicles in New Zealand, but many of them a r? not private cars

and would pay more than £1 each, so that the premiums will yield more than £IBO,OOO a year. ARE PREMIUMS TOO HIGH? Mr Nash (Palmerston North) : Surely £IBO,OOO a year is not paid out in claims in New Zealand? Mr Rolleston: We have no figures to go on, but a big accident involving £20,000 would soon make a hole in it. It may be, of course, that £IBO,OOO a year is too much. It is quite a question whether risks should be increased and the premium raised. It would be quite open to consider it next year. Mr Parry (Auckland Central): Oh, the Labour Party will consider it next year. The Minister of Lands: You are very optimistic over there. (Laughter.) Mr Rolleston continued by saying that £1 premium was no great hardship on motorists. Anyhow insurance was an obligation the motorist owed the public. He wanted members to regard this Bill in that light. Ordinary commercial vehicles would pay 30s a year. Vehicles used for commercial purposes and occasionally for the carriage of passengers would pay £3, whereas they paid from £lO to £lB now for their cover. Fire brigades would pay £2 per vehicle, as against £8 to £l7 ss. Taxis which now paid from £ls to £34 would pay £7 10s and £1 10s extra for seats over six. Seats in larger vehicles exceeding twenty-five would be 10s each. So far as municipalities were concerned, it would be good business for them to come in under this scheme, because they would get it much cheaper than at present. Both Government and municipalities would come in and reap considerable benefit. This would be seen from the fact than an omnibus carrying twenty passengers now paid £44 premium, whereas they would now pay only £24. A vehicle carrying thirty passengers would pay only £3l 10s, as against £49 now, and that is a considerable saving. The Leader of the Opposition: I want to know where the saving will come in when the owner wants to insure both vehicle and the person. The Minister: I don’t know what the separate property risk would be, but it couldn’t possibly be more. However, I want members to regard this Bill in the light of public protection. There is no real protection in many cases now. Only the other day a lad was injured and lost his leg. He was awarded £I2OO damages, and the bus owner immediately filed in bankruptcy and the poor lad got nothing. MOTOR-CYCLES. FIFTEEN SHILLINGS. Continuing his recital of the schedule, the Minister said that motor-cyclists would pay only 15s, as against £4 10s to £6 10s. The maximum cover in respect of a motor-cycle was unlimited. Mr Rolleston went on to show that for the very low rates quoted motorists and cyclists could cover themselves against financial ruin. Every motorist who drove an uninsured car had ruin staring him in the face in case he should be involved in a claim totalling £2OOO. Replying to Labour interjections, the Minister contended that no State monopoly could give a better service, and it would not be prudent for one office to take over a risk of this magnitude. THE DISCUSSION. Mr Sullivan said that, however much members might disagree w r ith some of the details of the Bill, they must all agree with its principal purpose. There was now a great necessity for some such measure, b-ut he was afraid it would be a big harvest for lawyers and insurance companies. What he meant by that was that what had happened in connection with workers’ compensation would happen here, namely that the companies would challenge every case, which would have to >be fought out in the Courts. He regretted that the Bill did not propose to make insurance a State monopoly, as he thought it should be. Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) suggested that the scope of the Bill, should be extended so that a car owner might be able to take out an alternative risk, one that covered third party risk only, and one that covered third party risk and damage to property at the same time. As the Post and Telegraph Department was collecting premiums there should be no difficulty about car owners having that alternative. He, however, thought such important proposals should not be rushed into legislation before the people had time tg become acquainted with them. He therefore asked the Government to consider the advisability of delaying the passing of the Bill till next session. Sir Joseph Ward urged the inclusion of a voluntary passenger, because it was very unpleasant when a car owner was obliging a friend, an accident occurred and an action was taken against the car-owner by one whom he had been obliging. He favoured extending the scope of , the Bill if the moderate premiums charged would permit of it. He did not favour State monopoly. This country was under considerable obligation to the big insurance companies for subscriptions to loans in time of necessity, and it would not be wise to enact coercive legislation towards them. lie would support the Bill. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition. thought the «Bill should have been sent to a special committee which could ha\e taken evidence from those concerned, but as that could not now be done this session he would not have the Bill imperilled in view of the large number of accidents which were* taking place in all parts of the Dominion. I The Minister replied and the Bill was read a second time.