Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1947 YOUNG FARMERS’ CLUBS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 57, 23 July 1947, Page 4

Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1947

YOUNG FARMERS’ CLUBS

EASTERN v WESTERN BAY TROPHIES TO PAENGAROA “That the motor car has impaired the well being of mankind” was the subject debated by the Paengaroa and Opotiki Young Farmers’ Clubs at Thornton on Monday night. The two teams were the finalists for the Bay of Plenty Shield and the Eastern Area, Auckland Council Debating Cup. The teams comprised the following:— Paengaroa: B. Vant (Leader), K. Conway and R. Bowman. Opotiki: T. Brown (Leader), I. Grant and L. Joblin. Mr M. Law was chairman, Rev. H. M. Bell adjudicator and Mr E. R. Marryatt timekeeper. A very large crowd was present and as the teams represented the winners from the East and West areas of the Bay of Plenty interest was high. Opotiki took the negative and their opponents the affirmative. Opening the debate for Paengaroa Mr Vant outlined the meaning of the subject. He went on to state that with the advent of the motor car man’s exercise began to be confined almost wholly to' stepping in and out of vehicles. The low standard of fitness among recruits for the war he also traced to lack of walking, due to riding in cars. Deaths and injuries due to cars in New Zealand and U.S.A. were also quoted. In America 1,540,000 people were killed or injured annually as a result of car accidents. (78 points). Mr Brown, opening for Opotiki, said that the motor car had been responsible for a revolution in human living. The car had its disadvantages his team admitted but these were far outnumbered by its blessings. He took the farmer as his example. Without a car the man on the land would be seriously handicapped from both business and social points of view. From a medical service angle also was the farmer at a disadvantage without the car. In the case of accidents the time factor could make all the difference. Without motor cars doctors and nurses could not answer urgent calls from a distance so that the farmer would be at a serious disadvantage. Far grom being a disadvantage the speed of a car was responsible for the saving of many lives. For the volume of traffic near large cities there were surprisingly few accidents. Were all the vehicles horse-drawn the speaker considered there would be more accidents. The motor car, he said was the Herald of Democracy, the John the Baptist of a new age. (73 points).

Mr Conway, carrying on the case for the affirmative thought that, far from being quick and comfortable as his opposition friends stated, the car was often too fast to be comfortable. The car had caused a revolution right enough, people were no longer content to remain in their own homes. They travelled more often than was necessary, and at high speeds. The results were a rising in nervous disorders and mental diseases. Before the advent of the car life had dignity. The average driver was keyed up to a high pitch. He quoted to the effect that sick minds had multplied six times in the last twenty years in U.S.A. Today the outlook was one of “Time Marches On.” People were inclined to pursue the temporary pleasures so frantically that they overlooked the more permanent ones. (65 points).

The economic and social advantages of the car were upheld by Mr

I. Grant. Necessity was the mother of invention. Mankind, constantly striving towards a better way of life had developed the motor car. To keep pace with the increased tempo of life the old methods had been discarded and the faster, simpler car picked. In opening up large tracts 'of unproductive land, facilitating transport and improving social conditions motor vehicles had played a major part. The motor industry had given employment to millions, including blind and crippled people who were thus given a new interest in life. In New Zealand the motor and allied industries gave employment to a large number. The motor car could not impair people when such a large number were gaining their livelihood from it. The speaker quoted comparative costs. A buggy complete with horses and harness would have cost about £l9O. This today would be trebled as the value of the pound was lower. He submitted that for a few extra pounds a more comfortable, and speedier form of transport was available in the car. Running costs were~cheaper. £SO would be the average for a car while to feed four horses the cost would be around £BO. This figure was not counting upkeep on harness, the buggy etc. He mentioned the motor fire engine and the lives and property it was responsible for saving. (79 points). The third speaker for the affirmative, Mr Bowman, defied Mr Grant to run a car at less than 30/to £2 per week. He took the average wage earner receiving £6 per week. Rent at 30/- and his car at another 30/- meant that he had £3 left to feed and clothe his family besides saving to further himself if he had any ambition at all. Often the fact of owning a car meant that he could not own a business which he could have purchased otherwise. Divorce figures had risen with the number of cars and the birth rate had dropped. The wage earner-car owner had no money for a family. His choice between a car and a family usually resulted in his keeping the car.

Wars were traced to a quest for petroleum products to drive motor vehicles. A non oil producing country was at the mercy of the producer countries. Tanks, aeroplanes, etc. which had taken the war to civilians were simply offspring of the car. The moral effect was instanced by the number of young people apearing in the courts for traffic offences. (72 points). Car ownership was the solution to the discontent which had shaken the world said Mr L. Joblin. No longer was the car a luxury, rather had it become an integral part of modern life. To own a low priced, economical car was one of the ambitions of almost every man. Before the advent of cars mankind had cherished the dream of the magic carpet, then came the car. Speaking from his own experience his car had given him untold pleasure. Entertaining lady friends, taking them to dances and home had all been made possible by the car. The speaker had had some experience in these matters. The car had not impaired his well being and had certainly not impaired anyone else’s. Records broken over the years proved that cars had not impaired the physical well being of mankind. New Zealand sportsmen and mankind as a whole were growing bigger and stronger all the time. (71 points). In his summing up the negative leader criticised the affirmative arguments. Accidents were bound to happen whether there were cars or

not. Very often the cause of a motor accident was not the car but the driver. The expense figures quoted by the opposition were more in the nature of a commercial traveller rather than the average owner. The car had caused a revolution to mankind and the disadvantages were far outweighed by the benefits. (31 points).

The affirmative leader said that his opponents had told a long story of the advantages for which cars were responsible without trying to disprove facts and figures which could not be disputed. Regarding the saving of time he told the story of a jeep driver who proudly told a Chinaman he had made a trip 20 minutes faster than it had been done before. All the Chinaman said was, “What are you going to do with the 20 minutes?” The car had caused a revolution but it had resulted in a craze for speed, followed by nervous disorders and mental breakdowns. He again stressed the birth and divorce rates. The choice between a baby in the crade and a baby car in the garage usually went to the car. (43 points). Judge’s Comments

Rev. H. M. Bell said that his was no easy job but he had done his best. In addition to the points given above Paengaroa was awarded 40 points for team work and Opotiki 35. The former team won by 298 points to 289.

The decision was well received.. Rev. Bell went on to point out weak spots to the teams and comment on general points in the’ contest.

The chairman then called on Mr J. Barr, chairman of the Eastern Bay district, who presented Mr Vant with the trophies.

Short addresses by the leaders of both teams, in which they thanked Rev. Bell and Mr Marryatt for their assistance, concluded the debate.

Supper was served and dancing was carried on.