FIRE ENGINE SMASH.

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14600, 25 February 1921, Page 6

FIRE ENGINE SMASH.

(To the Editor). Sir. —I should be glad if you would grant me a little of your valuable space, in reply to youV correspondent. Mr E. W. Lux ford. Eirsl of all Mr Luxford states that the remarks made by me re tiie above disaster arc so extraordinary that be considers Ihc I public is entitled lo a full explanation from me. 1 fail, sir, to see llnd there is anything extraordinary at all in my ! remarks, and think it is very probable that Mr Luxford is the only person who does think so. My sole object in bringing the mailer before (he Council was to try at anyrate to do something to prevent such disasters in future. The finding of I in* Coroner j which I do not. as Mr LuxfoVd sug- | gests, practically contradict), was lo , [ the effect that t?••• victims mcl their j | end through tin ■ .turning of the j | die engine; also iliat. the lire engine | j W..S travelling 100 fast, and that Ihc | I driver of the motor tuick committed i a breach of the by-law in that he kept ! to the centre of the road instead of j as close to the wak'rlabie as possible without going into it, as required by i I lie by-law. Now, "Sir, in the face j of Hint finding are we satisfied to lot the matter go and do nothing to try and prevent such occurrences, in future? t for one am not. and 1 am j fully persuaded that the public generally expect that something should be j done. As lo my statement Hint the driver of the tire engine had committed j a grave error of judgment, t fail to i sec how anyone could make anything . i else of,it. if one takes into consider. - !- ! I lion Ihc particular locality. Ihc pace 1 at which Ihc fire engine was travelling, j [ and Ihc number and position of the | I vehicles on Hie road. I quite realise | ! 11 in t anyone is liable to make an error j j of judgment, which may In - the result i I of an overtaxed nervous system or something else, hut 1 maintain that it I is someone’s duly In lry and prevent a recurrence, and (here is only one course open. The valuable information conveyed to the public by Mr j Luxford to the effect that it is not the j j duly of the Borough Council to inquire I | as to the ability or otherwise of Hie I 'driver of the engine, no doubt will be appreciated, but I should like to remind Air Luxford that the Hamilton Boronah Council is in duty bound lo see that the roads of Hie town are made reasonably safe for the public who have the rigid to use them, by regulating motor and oilier traffic. Mr Luxford goes on to give bis opinion on what does involve the Hamilton Roroncb Council in Hie matter, viz., the fact that there was no electricity to sound the alarm at the Central Elation. Mr Luxford knows quite well that it j is impossible lo provide against a break in the electric system, and no sane person would guarantee an uninterrupted flow of eledtrir power at a given point. Therefore that phase of tiie question is finite beyond Hie control of Hie Council. Knowing Hint syrens were out of order. ! should Pave thought the passing from one j fire lo anollier should have been nn- 1 fieri a ken will) an extra amount of j care on Hie part of Hie driver. file | second mailer wbi ,- h eoneerns the Council, in Mr l.nxford's opinion, is j Hie stale of Hie walerLdtle. I may say Hint it is a dislincf breach of Hie by- | law to allow Hie wheel nf a vehicle , lo get inlo the walerlahle. Mr Lux- j ford next takes exception b> my re- I mark that lliere is no need for a fire | epffine to go at sm'h a lend tic sued. I and goes on to ask if i would limit | Hie speed of a fire* engine to i miles per hour if there was an outbreak of fire at (be Waikato Hospital? Weil. Mr Editor. T would have forgiven Mr Luxford bad be asked such a question in Ids early infam-w but when it comes from a man in Mr l.nxford’s position, I think the less said about, it the belter. I am not at all concerned as to whether or not other local bodies lev (o limit Hie speed of fire engines. | but I can sec no reason why Hie | Hamilton. Borough Council should not | move in that direction. Mr Kdiloi. t maintain that the recent accident has proved most conclusively the folly of driving at such a dangerous speed; for mite apart from Hm danger to life, {he only means 'we have of successfully allocking a serious fire is Inst |n us. Therefore it is not even in the interests of propej-ty to travel at such a speed. We may at an> tune have a serious outbreak of fire in lids town, and if our fire engine is mil of j 'commission, where are we? In con- 1 elusion I may say that T do noi wish j to make the position of Hie unfor- | Innate driver any more difficult than it j already is. and I have every sympathy fnr him. and from Hus point of view I I think that Mr Liixford’s letter would ; have been lid ter left in die ink pot. j for if one boils Hm contents down, one can only conclude Hint it is a clumsy attempt at while washing.—l am. e.c.. FltF.I) A. SNELL.