“TALKIE” TRAFFIC.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17869, 15 November 1929, Page 6

“TALKIE” TRAFFIC.

OVERWEIGHT BUSES. LOCAL COMPANY FINED. DAMAGE TO ROADS. The "Talkies" at Cambridge were said by counsel in the Hamilton Court to-day, to be have been primarily responsible for a charge against Buses, Limited, of breaking the motor regulations. The company was charged with running a heavier load over the Hava-ilton-Cambridge Road on the night of October 29, than is permissible under the regulations on this road, which is scheduled as third-class. According to Mr F. Swarbriek, solicitor for the Waikato County, the County traffic inspector, Mr A. 1. McGuire, stopped one of the defendant company’s buses on the main road between Hamilton and Cambridge. The weight permitted over a third-class road is six tons, including the weight of the vehicle. The company put on its biggest bus to cope with the “talkie” traffic, a vehicle, which empty, weighed 4 tons 8 cwt., and was licensed to carry 32 persons. On this particular night it had a total load of 33 persons. The regulations defined a live-weight ton as 16 passengers. On this basis, therefore, the total weight of the bus and its load was over 6 tons 8 cwt. After action had been commenced, said Mr Swarbriek, the manager of Buses, Limited, interviewed the County Council, and pointing out that the offence had been committed in ignorance of the regulations, undertook that it would not be repeated. In these circumstances the council did not press for a penalty. His Worship said it was the oustness of persons running buses and other heavy vehicles to make themselves familiar with the classification of the roads over which they proposed to run their vehicles. The responsibility was theirs. When they set out without enquiring, especially over a road like the Hamilton-Cam-bridge highway, which had a fine surface with thin skin, even one jour.ney with a heavy vehicle might do very serious harm and cause the local authority heavy loss. His Worship added that but for the prosecutor not pressing for a penalty, lie would have inflicted a heavy fine. In view of what counsel had said, however, he would fine the company only 20s and costs.