MOTOR ACCIDENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 65, 17 March 1936, Page 18

MOTOR ACCIDENTS.

CAUSE AND CORRECTION. A WORLD PROBLEM. " UNIFIED CODE NECESSARY. (By J. LAIRD.) The Lord gave mankind the earth— to a few the sense of humour to see the joke. 1936 A.D. a world of achievement— "Little Jack Horner sat in the corner and said what; a clever fellow ain I." Yet we have a toll'of death, injury, suffering and financial losses unparalleled in the world's history,, arising out of the use of man's greatest servant, the motor vehicle. Great Britain, a toll of 2,500,000 persons killed or injured in the last 25 years—U.S.A. 1,000,000 persons killed or injured last year —Australia, a 51 per cent increase over last year—New Zealand, with a population of only one and a half million, paid per medium of compulsory third party personal injury insurance, £288,554 to injured, personsCanada. and everywhere else in ratio to population and number of vehicles on the ( road. And we call ourselves civilised, efficient, and sanely governed. Stevenson, with a steam locomotive, created rapid transportation—there was a public outcry at the criminally reckless speed of 15 miles per hour. There is still a section of the public living in the past, ignoring the universal desire and economic necessity for speed and still more speed/' resulting in our present problem, due entirely to the failure of those in authority to clarify and make understandable to the community the factors that constitute safe use of the highway, the existing laws and to to enforce sane control of these .speeds. The average motorist, to-day, drives without proved qualifications other than his ability to * start, steer and stop the ; vehicle and, in some cases, perhaps an elementary knowledge of the rules and regulations (where such exist) governing motoring—a case of a little knowledge is dangerous. It is generally assumed a driver's license has been granted on proven ability and knowledge—that the person granting this license is also qualified to test the applicant on his knowledge of the regulations, on his physical and mental qualifications, on his knowledge of the mechanical control' of the vehicle, on his ability to estimate speed and distance. Obvioubly, if unable to do this approximately correctly, any driver is a menace on the road. Personally apply

What test did you actually undergo —what knowledge do you possess to justify you being a licensed driver ? Can you correctly* estimate speed and distances (check this by actually estimating distances) ? Can you estimate speed (your own and the other fellow's) ? How long does it take you to see, realise danger, then transfer your foot from accelerator and apply brakes? (The average time required is three-quarters of a second —how long do you take?)

After application of brakes,: what is the minimum distance to stop from any given speed? This ability to mentally and physically react, plus the braking ability to stop, represents the zone of danger in front of every moving vehicle or person. Do you know the distances at any given speed this represents? Do you know the accepted rate of acceleration or distance required to turn or swerve at varying speeds ? What is your knowledge of motor regulations, the rules governing motoring? What governs the safe speed to drive at under any conditions? (The correct answer is the ability to stop in half the clear vision ahead, or before arriving'at a point where danger might possibly, materialise.) Do you observe this rulfe—always? Do you understand the right-hand rule and its application, or the intersection rule calling for 15 miles an hour or varying speeds based . on vision and the ability to stop (only a modification of the first rule above/ given). Do you know the correct side, of the road to drive on—always? If you- cannot satisfactorily answer any, gr all of these questions, you are not qualified to be in charge of a dangerous hi"h speed motor vehicle on the highway—you do not know the rules governing safe motoring, therefore you cannot possibly observe or obey them. You would not attempt, or be allowed to play any game unless you knew and observed the rules—why, then, should you be allowed to drive a motor vehicle, the most dangerous, game of all, without this knowledge? How is it possible for anyone to possess or acquire this essential knowledge —all the factors of safe motoring, i.e., a knowledge of the motor vehicle human control and reactions—the rules and regulations —the law, and most important of all, human nature ■as applied to motoring. This knowledge is not contained in any book of rules and regulations or any other book to my knowledge; it does not officially exist in simple understandable language to guide and control even those desirous of safer motoring—or those desirous of fairly and impartially enforcing safer motoring. Is this not the true cause of the present world's motor accident problem 1 — the inability of everyone to acquire this necessary knowledge—the knowledge necessary to formulate and put into operation suitable rules ""'and control acceptable, observable and enforceable. The existing rules, owing to lack of clarity, understanding and common, legal interpretation, are causing endless, purposeless litigation and confusion—the average person, even if he, reads them, has his own interpretation —so has the enforcement officer and very often the Courts.

The total absence of legally accepted standards (understandable' to the layman or general public) of care, ability or knowledge further confuses—the l'aw standard 'is "that of "an average person"—what does this really mean or c'onvey to the general public 1 ■' We have ' accepted standards of the control "of motor vehicles—but nothing definite or concrete, other, than individuaT opinion, on the 'most important factors-of all, the driver or the pedestrian. These standards have, for years, been established 'beyond legal argument. Why is it not generally accepted now instead of waiting for, say, ten years' time? Why not remove this fog of ignorance —conservative thought or ideas —this uncertainty, if we honestly are trying for safer motoring ? Why not incorporate all this knowledge in an officially accepted text book for the guidance and safety of everyone (unles^.officially and legally accepted, it is useless). Given this education, enforcement of the law presents 110 difficulty—the fear of certain punishment and the impossibility of legally evading same would .deter the average carelessly negligent person. This would materially reduce motor accidents, reduce the present huge cost of useless enforcement, the upkeep of hospitals and the present community waste. Motor accidents, however, will continue until all traffic using the highway is controlled by one set of common rules legally enforced and offenders punished. This is conclusively proved by the ever-mounting statistics —increasing in spite of safety councils —in spite of 12,000,000 copies of the highway code distributed in Great Britain — in spite of punishing or trying to control one section of highway users only —the motorist —111 spite of tlie i senseless endeavour to retard progress by unreasonable limitation of speed—in spite of polite requests and injunctions for common sense and common courtesy on the part of road users —in their ignorance of what this really means, 110 one takes this personally. Motor accidents seldom if ever are an act of God, the majority arise out of joint negligence—usually created by ignorance. In urging education and enforcement I claim 110 originality — this is the universal slogan of every leader of safer motoring. I do believe, however, this education and enforcement is valueless unless it emanates from and is endorsed by the courts —then only can we look for legal guidance, legal interpretation of the rules, legal acceptance of standards —without this any education is only of negative value. My qualification for writing this article is 15 years exclusively employed adjusting approximately 14,000 motor accident claims necessitating contacting, say, 50,000 persons of all grades of society.