DRIVERS & DRINK

Wairarapa Times-Age, 4 July 1939, Page 2

DRIVERS & DRINK

THE PROPOSED HALF-HOUR PROVISION. DOCTOR ADMITS HIMSELF PUZZLED. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. “As a medical man I am rather puzzled about this half-hour business,” said Dr H. Graham Robertson at a meeting of the executive of the Automobile Association (Wellington) last night, when the proposed Transport Amendment Bill was under discussion. He asked why half an hour should be fixed as the period within which it should be an offence to drive a motor-vehicle after drinking liquor. The chairman, Mr E. A. Batt, said a man could be “well shot” and yet comply with the half-hour provision. “The absurdity of it lies in the fact that it is impossible to enforce,” he said. Mr R. S. Jvlitchell: “That is the greatest weakness.” Mr E. Palliser: “I think it would be just as farcical as the anti-shouting law.”

Mr Mitchell said the Government evidently desired to bring within the law the man who was not drunk within the meaning of the present law but who was “lit up.” The chairman said it appeared futile to add more laws to the many motorists had to observe already when there was no possibility of their being administered.” Mr Palliser: “Is the half-hour limit going to make a drunk man sober?” Dr Robertson: “I would like to hear the arguments in favour of that halfhour.” “We are all in sympathy with the authorities in their endeavours to reduce drunkenness in cars, but see difficulties in some of the proposals put up,” said the chairman. “If there is a way of catching the drunk motorist or controlling drunkenness or reducing it to a minimum I am sure it will have the hearty support of motoring organisations generally.”