[LINK] The Red Flag Act

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Glen writes,

> Sure, the (Red Flag) legislation looks odd to modern eyes.. But to
> paint it as the result of industry lobbying rather than a reaction
> of horror to the obvious possibilities of injury requires argument
> and .. sources ..

Having a look at the, 'eMelbourne - The Encyclopedia of Melbourne Online'
here <http://www.emelbourne.net.au> one can read of a slightly different
twist regarding transport laws being the result of any industry lobbying. 

The eMelbourne encyclopedia assert that here, government-owned transport 
industries have lobbied successfully for restrictive transport laws, and
not private industry per se. In the case below, anyway, public safety or
even public convenience may not appear to have any bearing on law-makers.

 http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM01017b.htm

"The number of motorists increased rapidly in the years before World War 
I, and the trend accelerated during the 1920s when the number of vehicles 
on Victorian roads doubled from 70,000 in 1924 to 154,000 in 1929. The 
car threatened the profitability of the State-owned transport monopolies. 
By the mid-1920s, private bus-owners, often ex-servicemen driving second-
hand hire purchase vehicles, were busily opening up new routes wherever 
they saw a chance of attracting passengers. In 1927, however, the State 
Government brought 'the bus wars' to an abrupt end by establishing the 
Transport Regulation Board. Henceforward bus services would be licensed 
only for routes which fed, rather than bled, the government's suburban 
railway services." 
--

Cheers,
Stephen