Putnam patriot., 1915-06-25
REGULATION FOR
 JITNEY BUSSES
Bridgeport Ordinance Commit ;se Strongly Fayors Measure
TO PROTECT PEDESTRIANS
Many Citizens Attend meeting-Rep- resentati4es of Jitney Owners Oppose secfions-Aot Would
 Insure Public.

Insure Public.
 Bridgeport Following the discus zion If the suggestion Of Theodore T.. steiber, secretary Of the Bridge porf Jltney Bus. Inc. that proviaion be made in the proposed jitney bus ordinance that ali jituays should be compelled 10 carry pedestrian insur. anee a strong feeling in favor of such a provision developed among the mem bers Of the ordinance committee at the public hearing at the City Hall here. II seemed to be the consensus of opinion that the safety Of the public should be safeguarded 10 that extent themselves as not desiring to impose any heavy burden on iitHey owners, 4he matter was strongly advocated in ahe discussion
 Opposition first developed on sec 3ion three of the proposed ordinance, providing that the city vehicle license number be placed on the sides Of every iitney In letters of prescribed size. Mir. steiber offered sugges- zion that t would be better tO have the number. with the words license number painted on the vehicle. 80 that in eaae af any complaint of viola tiou of fraaia ordinances the driver Of fbs vehicle at fanl8 eonld easily b. found Prosecuting Attorney A. To- Delaney approved of thia suggestion strongly. as he stated that he had re cefved complaint from a litneY driv- CT that his license number had been stolen from the ear and was an sloubtediy being used by some other driver He declared the painting Of the number on the ear would prevent Tecuuenee.
 Mr. stefher fnld the committee that he strongly favored Superintendent Birmingham idea oT having The city ehauHeurs conduct tests of the ability of all jitney drivers applying for h- censes. He declared that it would be better fl all applicants should have held a Connecticut license or license from any state for three months pre- vious to making application to the po- lice for q iitney license. thus ensur- ing more capable drivers 10 the pro lection of the public safety
 Wilbur Hendricks. another jitney owner, brought out the point that person could have had the state IT, cense in his possession for three months and not have had any exper- fence in operating ear He assert ed that the test suggested by Super intendent Birmingham would be suhl- cient
 Strong objection was made by MT. Steiber to section "A. which provides that Hineys shall go to within two and a half feet of the curb when receiving ar discharging passengers He claim ed that this vas impossible in front Sf fAeatres and other public places. as long lines Of automobiles were parked along the curb awaiting their messengers. In this he was suhstan- fiated by W II Graham. a driver in his employ. who declared that at night Ai would be impossible to do so from Congress street 10 Gilbert street. NIT. Steibtr suggested that the words ~wherever possible" be Included in the section.
 Regarding section II. prohibiting stopping 10 take on or discharge pas, sengers within 50 feet of street in fersection. 1t was found that section 15. Article 1. of an ordinance adopted August 2. 1910. provided that 10 feet be the distance The section will be changed to conform with this.
 Relative to giving the superiutend- ent Of police power to reroute iitnevs on holidays or during parades. Mir. steiber interpoeed strenuous objeC- Ion. He sad he would favor re- routing all private vehicles and al- lowing the iitneys alone to continue on tha malu streets as the public de- mandad their continuance at such times. A an alternative he sugeest- ed that hotu itneya and private ve~ fieles be reroutod on two different Etree
 The matter Of posting tariffs on all sarry buses provided in section l9, Teg ea1 ear owners said they saw no recessne for t. They stated that the fare was generally known. and addi- tionm signs Woudl mar the appearance hF the cars Some of the committee members seemed to think that the Information was necessary for the in- formation Of transients.
 The discussion on the suggestion fnaf al 5iineys be compelled to carry Insurance against the injury to pedes- srians brdnght out the fact that such rsrofection cost the owners sl5 year.