TRAFFIC BY-LAWS.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 772, 3 October 1922, Page 5

TRAFFIC BY-LAWS.

BREACHES COMMITTED. BY-LAWS AND NOTICES AT CORNERS. MISLEADING AND CONFLICTING. OFFENDERS BEFORE COURT. NOMINAL PENALTIES INFLICTED Owing to the increasing traffic in Pukekohe, especially on market days, the Borough traffic by-laws are being rigidly enforced with a view of regulating the -traffic. At last Thursdays sitting of the Magistrate’s Courit before Mr E„ W, Burton* S M-, a number of cases were brought, merely as a warning to the public. In each case, excepting the last one called, the defendants pleaded guilty but when the charge against Mr John Tozer was called the defendant pleaded not guilty. Charges were preferred against William Beddick, Edward Bilkey Thomas Churchill, Jas. Henry Rodgersi, Joseph Strong, Fred Urquhart and John Tozer for leaving their motor cars and vehicles in various public streets unattended for more than 15 minutes As previously stated each pleaded guilty excepting Mr Tozer. Fines of 10s with an order to pay 7s Court costs were imposedMR TOZER’S CASE. In connection with Mr Tozer’s case, Constable Miller said that on the date mentioned in the information he had defendant’s car under observation between 1 and 2 p,,m. The car. during this period, was unattended. When the owner came along he askedl him why he had left his car unattended for more than. 15 minutes. Defendant (replied (that he had left it more than 40 yards back’ from the corner. -To defendant : The car was about 45 yards back .from the notd'ce on the corner In reply to"-a- question by in - Magistrate about; the' ijuiJee Constab.e Miller said /that a notice had been put up at the corndr of mers’ Union Trading Co s premises by the Borough Council warning people not to leave vehicles witlim 40 yards of The corneir.

The Magistrate thought the notice should not have been put up at all because it was misleading to, the •public. It was evidently done with a View of keeping the corner clear (IRe by-law, he added, stipulated 10 chains from the main street. Constable Millar said that the notice would certainly mislead people, Mr Basley interjected and pointed out to the Bench that according to the notice vehicles could be left over 40 yards from the corner and people could go about their business. He thought that the notice and by-law were conflicting andl the latter could' be held to be unreasonable. Defendant said tha notice told people not -to leave vehicles within 40 yards of the corner. 'He left his car 45 yards from the corner and thought he -was safe. The Magistrate reiterated his previous statement* and added that the notice was unfair to the public. However;, a breach of the by-law had been committed, and he must convict In view of the circumstances brought about by the notice he inflicted a nominal fine of 5s and ordered defendant to pay 7s Court costs. As soon as Mr Tozer’s case, was concluded Mr Bilkey asked that he should be similarly treated but the Magistrate pointed out that according to a Supreme Court decision, a Magistrate having once given judgment could not al'ter it, With reference to the point raised by Mr Tozer. it was hinted that ,as the notice and by-law were conflicting, thatj the ne»t case, it there is one, would be contested, to test thq validity of the by-law, it being also hinted that due by-law was unreasonable. _ With a view of acqua.ntmg The • public with the wording of the notice and the wording qf the by-law we publish the information. The by-law reads . “No person shall leave any vehicle unattended in any of the following streets and places for more than 15 minutes at any time namely, King Street Maiiukau Road! from King Street' to Harris Street West Street from King Street to Helvetia Road, Queen Street from King Street, to Nelson Street, East Street from raj - way bridge to Prospect Terrace. AH other streets m- public places within 10 chains of King Street.’ The notice on tne co. ner of Had and King Streets, in red 10-ters, states: “Vehicles must not be lett standing within 40 xmds ot tins corner. By order J F- Leane Town Clerk,” A sirr.ear notice is King Streets. . , The following notice appeals at the corner of King and Edinburgh erected at the corner of Seddon and Streets (Brosnahan s side): Vehicles must not be left stanebng -> - tween this corner and the lire Station. By order, J. F. Deane, Town Another by-law states : Stands for licensed vehicles shall be a*, such places in . .the streets of the Borough as the Council shall from time to time by resolution direct oi appoint ” It was pointed out in the Court by one of the defendants that it has been the custom for 40 or 50 yea is for people to leave their vemcles anywhere 'in side street*, and he pleaded ignorance of the by-law. In view cf the notice boai d by-law., a peculiar position has arisen and it would be interesting to have litigation on -the point to test the validity of the notice and the bylaw, inasmuch as one conflicts with the other. According to the flown Clerk’s interpretation of the notice it means that on no account must a vehicle be allowed to stand 49 yards from the corners mentioned, but > vehicles can stand for a period of 15 minutes unattended . over the 40yds and under the 10 chains." Vehicles, therefore to come within the meaning of the by-law. must be parked outside thcsi 10 chains limit, which must be considered unreasonable for a town the size of Pukekohe. Bylaws are necessary, ft must be admitted, but to compel the public to

*4 leave their vehicles a distance of 10 chains from the main business thoroughfare is out of the question. Of course traffic has to be regulated to permit of the thoroughfares' being accessible. ,The public are beingdriven away, candidly speaking, from doing business hi Pukekohe instead of being encouraged. If, would be to greater advantage of all concerned iff some of the by-laws which effect the inhabitants Mof the Borough, particularly, were tigidly enforced> instead of a traffic by-law which sounds unreasonable. It would suffice for many year's to come, if the by-law governing the parking of vehicles was amended, in accordance with the notice, and vehicles allowed to park 40 or 50 yards out ftora any corner in the Borough. According to one by-law the Council can by resolution appoint a place for the parking of licensed vehicles and wg-un-derstand the only legal place within the 10 chains limit is in front of the hotel in King Street on the northern side, Supposing for argu-" ment sake, a large number of licensed vehicles lined up on the stand fn front of the hotel on sav, a Friday, and on the. side of the hotel a similar number of vehicles lined up every ,15 minutes—this pdntion of the street, because it is fairly narrow at this point, would become congested. Furthermore there are two dangerous corners approaching the straight ;;*n front of the hotel, and it is (fan more dangerous to allow licensed vehicles to park on the north sids of the street in front of the hotel than it is ?to allow vehicles to park 40 yards andj" further on side streets which abe litt.e or not used, , The wlner action for the Council to take would be to appoint, by resolution certain parking places, for instance, Roulston Avenue fS’om Jlall Street to Edinburgh Street. Farmers and thi|.<r families would then be tfi'ght on the spot to make use of the Ladies’ Rest Room, mainly for whom, we understand; the structure was constructed so that they could attend t/o and rest their children and themselves after a few hours’ shopping.

The matter referred -to above was brought iup at last night’s meeting of the Borough Council by the Town Clerk, who suggested the appointment of special parking places for private uifftov cars. Councillors . considered the by-lajy dealing with the. ..subject unreasonable. Cr Hamilton moved anj Cr Kennedy seconded, that motor cars be allowed to park in any street, except Edinburgh Street (from King Street past Fire Station), -10 yards from King Street. The motion was carried. It was decided to inform the police accordingly.