MOTOR-BUS REGULATIONS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18690, 13 May 1926, Page 11

MOTOR-BUS REGULATIONS.

■to TBX IDITO* OF "THJt TBISS." .Sir, —These regulations will flabbergast not orily New Zealanders but every Britisher in our great Empire. Many will not believe it possible that any English-speaking Government toul'l pass such legislation merely to protect a monopoly for the tramways by forcing up-to-date transport off our streets. I understaud that the reason given for such drastic legislation is that millions are involved. Well, iSir, it does not alter the facts, even if billions were involved. It's un-British to say tlie very least of it, and ir the Government insists on these new regulations, the only honourable course to take is to compensate the bus owners, comprised mostly of returner) men who fought for ,our liberty. One hoars on all sides the condemnation of these regulations, and it is surprising to find even supporters of the tramways admitting the unfairness, not only to the buses, but to the numerous passengers who have got into tho habit of "using them. From the insurance point of view it may be quite reasonable for the. proprietors to take out cover to protect their liability, but why confine this to buses; why not all vehicles using the same roads as trams; no doubt the (iovernnient Insurance Department could provido the neces-iry cover at a low rate.

In conclusion, although I quite agrer* with your leader in Tuesday's issue of "Tho'Press'' re. Ultra Vires, the best course for all bus proprietors to take is to immediately obtain signatures from the public in all leading centres to a petition to the Government, and it will be surprising the number they will obtain.—Yours, etc., REFORMER.

to rax editor of "thr rsTiss/'

Sir,—Might I a .Mi you througli your useful columns to remind those responsible for the ridiculous (and possibly illegal) proposed regulations that when power looms and steam threshing mills were first introduced, some were humeri and broken up by ignorant operatives, and to ask the frnmers and adprogress if they wish themselves to progress if thQey wish themselves to be placed by the general public in the same list as those short-sighted folk of earlier davs. —Yours, eto.. MOBILITY.

TO THS EDITOR OF "iffß PRESS."

Sir,—May I crave a space in your valuable paper to voice a protest against tho new bus regulations from a woman's point of view? I live in tho Hornby district, and for years the. people out here have been served with a very inadequate tramway bus service. "Until quite recently we had an old trundling bus which went—sometimes; but more often than not it stopped, and passengers were faced with a long walk, or a longer wait, until another bus could be sent out from town* Also the Tramway Board sported one bus driver who hated a woman with a push-chair from the bottom of his soul, and many mothers, rather than brave his caustic remarks, left their babies to the indifferent care of or took a whole day and travelled into town by train. Thus the Tramway Board lost patronage. Some eight months ago, an' opposition man started, and he maintains a service wheh provides a maximum of convenience comfort, and courtesy, and up-tc-date has worked up a very promising connexion. Now the Tramway Board intend putting on a new bus to run right into town, and are proudly boasting about how soon .they will run the opposition bus. off under the new regulations. Exactly, but having disposed of their rival, it will be very interesting to see how long it will take the Tramwav Board to' fall back to the old workng. In place of the previous 6low trundle to Soekburn. a scramble out babies, etc., there to wait for the/tram, on to <vhieh we are.--.hurried by the motorman's bell and.'the conductor's "Hurry on, please," ; et'c\; then a long, dusty 'journey into' the city, punctuated by many stops and.jolts; a journey which invariably- 'occupied 40 minutes and left one feeling hot, dusty, and * n .' jt " able, we now enjoy a comfortable ride of - 20 fminutes ajt up-to-date bus, andt. arrive in the city feeling ready to cope -with any- business we may have on hand.

Now, .1; ask you, Sir, if tie Tramway Board have been blind to their own; interests for so long, and have .done every thins in their power to make the people dissatisfied, and to invite competition, why should these men, who have worked so hard to supply a long-felt want to the public, why should they be told to get off the road? Where is our boasted independence of thought..and action, our pride in British fair play and squaredealing, our duty to our returned boys (for most of the opposition bus-drivers are returned soldiers), and our Christian teaching to live and let live. Last of all, who is going to provide work for all these men who will be rendered idle, many of them with wives and families to keeo? Trusting that someone in authority will call a public meeting to protest against such rank injustice • and that the aoathetic public of Ch'ristohurch will rally round and support the men who are being so unfairly treated.—Yours, etc., "DO UNTO OTHERS, ETC."

TO THE IDIIO* 01 "THTB PRESS."

Sir,—lt has occurred to mo that the public in districts concerned could gen over the tramway monopoly and hpive their own bus service if they would only "get together." What is wrong with a co-operative bus service for each route? This would belong to the people, would be run at a minimum, and must be classed as a public service. I suggest that shareholders of £5 each be canvassed for, each shareholder pledging himself and family to use their own bus service. If this was done, and the sen-ice was unencumbered bv official pomp and red tape, dead-heads, etc., I think the shareholders concerned would be travelling three months in the year-free. Perhapsit would save a few of the private buses from going off the road, as the co-operative company could take over same.- Such a concern could be run bv an honorary secretary, honorary treasurer, and a bus driver-conductor. It to mv mind would be worth a trial, for there will never be a reduction in fares while the present tramway authorities have the handling of things. The reason is obvious: two men.are required to look after the third.—Yours, etc., CO-OPERATION.

TO TKS EDITOR Of "TUB PRESS."

g{ r _One of your contemporaries publishes a headline, "Bus Regulations Justified by Premier." My opinion « that some of the regulations are utterly unjustifiable, and the thanks of the community are due to you for your strenuous fight against their glaring injustice. 1 would like to point out to '•on that this attempt to. strangle a useful industry by regulation is a further strong argument against fctate and municipal trading enterprises. The inefficiency and stagnation ot these latter ventures is to be protected by eliminating competition by fair means or foul. The ultimate result it .the State octopus* pushes its tentacles into other industries-say dairying, butcheries baking, brickmakmg, ete., etc.will be an enormous, increase in living costs. One can imagine that State coal mines will soon achieye a regulation that other coals must be sold at so much per ton above State coal prices. These bus regulations are evil ir.principle and should be squashed.-* ours, ete '' iNTI-STATE MONOPOLY.