RED REFLECTORS A FARCE ON CARS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18624, 28 November 1928, Page 9

RED REFLECTORS A FARCE ON CARS.

OTAGO MOTOR CLUB FORCES TEST CASE.

A case of more than local interest, in that it dealt with the regulations requiring motorists to affix rear red reflectors to their cars, a question which has received a considerable amount of prominence since the passing of the regulations on August 1, was commenced in the Dunedin Police Court on Monday morning before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., when James Horatio Nelson was proceeded against on a charge of having no rear red reflector on his car. At the request of the Otago Motor Club, Mr W. G. Hay appeared for the defendant.

Ught, But No Reflector. Sub-Inspector Fahey said that defendant was seen in High Street at night, and though he had a rear light he had no reflector as required under the regulations. Mr Hay said that this was a test case brought up at the instigation of the Otago Motor Club and other motor clubs throughout New Zealand, to ascertain if the regulation dealing with the red reflectors was a reasonable one and to see if it were not ultra vires. The motor clubs and other associations had in the past assisted the Public Works Department in drawing up regulations, but in this particular case a difference of opinion had arisen and the Department had gone further than the association considered proper and right.

Department Went Too Far. The regulation appeared to be unique for New Zealand, for as far as could be found no other country had a similar regulation. In plain words, the regulation was a farce, as it required that besides complete lighting equipment, a red rear reflector was to be placed on every car. The matter was of great importance to motorists in New Zealand, for as there were 170,000 cars in the Dominion, and each reflector cost about ss, motorists would be compelled to pay a total of £40,000. Motorists, however, had still another complaint. When the regulation was passed in August last motorists obtained reflectors which complied with the conditions then set out, but since then an amended regulation had been passed in September, and as a consequence, all the reflectors purchased were absolutely useless and would have to be scrapped. Confusion Over Terms. In the first place, continued Mr Hay, it w T as contended that the regulation was ultra vires in that it was unreasonable and oppressive, while it was also impossible to comply with the conditions set out therein. Furthermore, the regulation exceeded the statutory power which was given by the Motor Vehicles Act on the true construction of the Act, and counsel then quoted a number of authorities to prove his contention. The regulations were in the same position as the by-laws and could be held to be unreasonable. There were two classes of reflectors, one being the objectionable red rear reflectoi and the other the rear view mirror, to which, as far as he knew, there was no objection. In 1924 the Motor Vehicles Act was passed and it was submitted that the term reflector did not refer to the rear reflector at all, but to the other reflector, which was designed to protect the first of two cars travelling together. This, he said, was supported by the Lights and Vehicles Amendment Act of 1926. It was apparently Parliament’s intention that motor vehicles should be exempt from the regulation referring to the carrying of rear red reflectors. He contended that the rear reflectors were quite unnecessary as the tail light gave ample protection in that it was extremely unusual for one to go out; also before the rear reflector was at all necessary the head lamps of the car behind must be out, which was a breach of the law in itself.

Why Reflectors? Mr Hay then quoted as an example the case of a stationary unlighted car being approached by another car. The Lights and Vehicles Act required the head lamps of a car to be of sufficient brilliance to give a clear view of the road surface for a distance of 1,50 feet ahead, consequently the driver of the second car would see the first car when it was 150 feet awaj r . In order to take the full 150 feet to pull up the second car would have to be travelling at sixty miles per hour, if it were equipped with four wheel brakes, or forty miles per hour if equipped with two wheel brakes. At the same time ordinary car lights showed the road clearly for a distance of 210 feet. In either of those cases an accident might happen, but the presence of a rear reflector would not prevent the accident. According to the Lighting Act the whole of the road must be visible for a distance of 150 feet. In that case the vehicle ahead would be plainly visible and therefore the reflector would be absolutely unnecessary. It was impossible to comply strictly with the regulation, as it required that a reflector should reflect rays over an arc of 40 degrees on either side at a distance of 150 feet from that point, which no reflector would do. Parliament, in its wisdom, had not considered it necessary to put reflectors on vehicles which were otherwise lighted, and he submitted that the case was one where the regulation was ridiculous and oppressive. The magistrate said that all regulations should be as simple as possible, but it was impossible to say that the regulations under consideration were simple.

As proof of the necessity for some regulation of the sort, continued Mr Hay, the Department had suggested that in the 'Case of an accident, engine faults might develop and the tail light go out. That, however, was impossible, as the tail light was in no way dependent on the engine, but was run by the battery, which was capable of lighting the lamp for forty-eight hours at a time without assistance from the engine. The Otago Motor Club had procured and tested samples of all the reflectors used in Dunedin, and none complied with the regulations. “No Practical Value.” Evidence was then given by Mr A. E. Ansell (president of the Otago Motor Club), who stated that the Motor Club had arranged the test case with the approval of all the other motor associations in New Zealand. lie had been driving for twenty or thirty years, and found that it was very uncommon for a tail light to go out, while it was even rarer that both tail and head lights should be put out of action. The Motor Club had made a collection of all the types of reflectors that could be obtained, and experiments had been made with them. The reflectors were tested with the lights of his own car, which were correctly focussed, and only one out of five or six was visible at a distance of seventy yards. Some of the reflectors were invisible until approached to within seven yards. In his opinion reflectors were of no practical value whatever in the presence of ordinary lighting. Ninety-five per cent of the reflectors fitted at the present time would not answer to the requirements of the new

regulations. He had asked the Public Works Department if it had ever head of an accident having taken place through the absence of a tail light, and the answer had been no. As part of its defence it stated that if the engine was not working the tail light would be out, which was quite incorrect. He did not think 'the regulation was at all justified. Dr Jack’s Evidence. Dr Jack, professor of physics at the Otago University, stated that he was present when the tests had been made, and he Confirmed Mr Ansell’s statements. He produced the reflectors which had been tested, and stated that only one out of five had been clearly visible at 150 feet. The others could just be discerned when in a direct line, but were invisible at an angle. The 40-<legree arc was absolutely impossible. Tested with a one-candle power lamp, which fulfilled the obligations of the regulation requiring a vehicle to have a light which was visible at a distance of 300 feet, the reflectors were visible at distances varying from 10 to 50 feet. Tested with his own car lights, the reflectors were visible with varying degrees of brilliancy up to 300 feet in a direct line, but the range of the arcs at which the reflections were visible varied from five to about 38 degrees, those being the extreme limits of visibility. All the reflectors were perfectly clean when tested, and failed to comply with the requirements of the regulation. The magistrate then adjourned the case for a week in order to give the police an opportunity to consider what course they would take with regard to the case for the prosecution.