BAD ROAD DESIGN.

Auckland Star, Volume LVXIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1937, Page 6

BAD ROAD DESIGN.

CAUSE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS

EXPERIMENT IN ENGLAND

The dosing month* of I?W> once again stimiilafc<l |iiil»lic anxiety about road accidents Tt whs not only the appalling total of casualties which disturbed its, hut also a conviction that we had failed to discover the logical preventive method* (writes the motorin- correspondent of the "Manchester (iiiardiun"). This J/elf-i.istinetive conclusion lias l)ccn reinforced from two sides during the hint few weeks. On .lie one hand, a jjreat mass of testimony, c.imewr.tit angrily furnished by road users, suggests that the construction of some of the new- arteries and by-passe* has served to increase danger rather than reduce it. On the other hand, a closely -

reasoned statement liy a county surveyor, supported by impressive evidence. challenge* one of the main doctrines of the Ministry of Transport, a doctrine based largely on police evidence.

The Oxfordshire county surveyor, .Mr. (J. T. liennett. stands almost alone amongst the road authorities of England in having effeeted a substantial reduction in accidents over the area for which he is resjmneible (of course, a surveyor's responsibility is only partial). The number of fatal accident-; on his road* during WMi was approximately half '.he number registered during l!t.{.">. If Mr. HoreHelishi, had attained a. ."><» per -eiit drop f<,r the whole country during lit.'Sti ht would have been acclaimed as a national benefactor. It must !*■ admitted that Oxfordshire is a largely agricultural county, threaded by few main roads <>f importance, attracting little tourist traffic, and almost devoid of iiii|K>rtmit inannfaeturing centre*. Still, it contains the Univprsitv and the Morris works, is on the direet route from London to many places of interest, and accommodate* traffic of substantial weight and frequency. The Oxfordshire Experiment. Mr. Bennett decided some years ago that many accidents were caused by inferior road layout, deceptive corners, narrow carriageway*, lack of footpaths, blind junctions, and the like. He proceeded to modify Mich danger points a* funds permitted, wherever experience showed that the defects in design did, in fact. create a special liability to accident. It is by this policy, and by this policy alone, that he has succeeded in halving the annual tale of fatalities in his urea over a period when all other road authorities register either a positive increase or at least a failure to secure greater safety. As the result of this continued experience. Mr. Bennett now teaches that about rtO per cent of road accidents are caused by bad road layout, that 00 j>er cent of the accidents could be eliminated by patching up such obvious defects in the existing main road*, and that a further 20 per cent could be cut out by reconstructing main roads to the theoretically ideal system with two carriageways and other modern improvements. This brings n* to the really .startling aspect of Mr. Bennett's theories. The Ministry of Transport has examined the problem from precisely the same angle, and suggests that bad road layout is to blame for precisely U per cent of the accidents. The contrast between Mr. Bennett's U0 per cent and the Ministry's .'! per cent i* fantastic. One of these contradictory authorities is obviously flagrantly in error. Mr. Bennett, with ruthless logic. supi>orts his reasoning with date* and places, and exhibit* a substantial increase in public safety through-' out his urea to prove his doctrine. The Ministry of Transport divides his figure l>v twenty on the authority of various witnesses, most of whom are local chief* of police and mosf, of whom lay the onu* on a failure of tlie human element. Road or Motorist? This alternative explanation is immediately suspicious. A fatal accident occurs in The Ministry receives a report from the chief of police at X. In a majority of instaifes this report sf : >f(v that a driver or a pedestrian was guilty of an error of judgment which was not -n serious as to be criminal. In other words, the local road conditions proved I too ii'iieh for the human facilities involved. I The difference between Mr. Bennett an<l the 1 Miiiist ,- v's x'Tt'eri-d witnesses i< thus often a ■ men' d-'Vc'i-nce of emphasis. The intli"t a iiiii<i I ie".it(Hi... ]i'|4 i,,1, in terois of individual* and Jof goit , . bhn"e« the individual ii"d cst'nuites [the Miilt. Tin , surveyor, rcardimr hi-»j«b I in te'-ii's of relieving the individual from i<ll I'Hwsibilit v of error, blame* the road whi-li deceived the individual. There is a distinct case fur HC-*eiit : 'iir Mr. Bennett's percentage lus against the Ministry's percentage. At any J rate, the <!'- Tepaney between the two is so lar-'o thut Mr. Hore-Belisha is bound to lamil'se the point closely during the coming ! months, and motorists will be surmised if the Mini-tvv does not revise its opinion in the near future.