PERPETUATING A BLUNDER.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17986, 1 February 1924, Page 6

PERPETUATING A BLUNDER.

DANGEROUS AND MISLEADING TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

('By Capt. E. do' Normanville, in the "Dailv Chronicle.")

I am aware that the period of the vear which enjoins ''Peace on earth and goodwill towards men" is close at hand. But all the sumo v.*o rc going to have a "bit of a row" to-day.

I am moved to anger by the receipt of a letter from, the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. Yet in truth it wholly innocuous—on the face of it at any rate! This is what it says: — "1 enclose herewith dralt notice dealing with traffic signals, and rules and recommendations for the use of the road. Having regard to the consider able amount of discussion which has taken place recently in the Press and otherwise oil the subject of traffic regulation and control, you may think it proper to give publicity to the matter. General Condemnation. I do—but net quite in the way the Royal Scottish Automobile Club presumably desires. How does it come about that tbe R.S.A.C. is found fathering a booklet of misleading and dangerous twaddle, which the parent body—-tho Royal Automobile Club —has, in full council, characterised as "dangerous and misleading"? Of all the pieees of crass imbecility ■which have occurred recently in tho sphere of motor politics, this ono "takes the bun."

It makes me wonder whether I ought to go and interview the kindly specialist at Hanwell —except when I recall that since the first public denouncement of this appalling traffic signals blunder in the ''Daily Chronicle" tho same attitude has been adopted by tho R.A.C.-, the "Autocar," the "Motor," tho "Motor Owner," many other motor, ing papers and writers, and tho vast bulk of experienced motorists. Ail Egregious Error. This traffic signals booklet is to me like a red rag to a bull. It constitutes the supine example of egregious blunder in the history of automobile' politics. And the Automobile Association is the author of this monumental piece of folly. That "glorious distinction" is now shared by the R.S.A.C., which asks tho Press to father ideas which the E.A.C. has, after the fullest deliberation, "definitely refused to sanction," and characterised as "dangero.us and ing." , As a Christmas amusement I ask you to look at the illustration [ arm upraised from elbow] reproduced from j this precious booklet, "Traffic Signals," designed—ye gods!—by the A.A. to make motoring safer! You are told, ..with the of the Home Offitfe and the Scottish Office, that it is to-be interpreted, "I am going to stop." Will you kindly imagine the same driver giving the same signal from a taxi, a bus, a van, an enclosed car, an open car with the hood up, or one of the all-weather types now most commonly sold? It beats "Charley's Aunt" into a cocked hat. The blunt truth, of course, is that it is an absolutely useless signal—and no ono gives it for that rerv reason. And the "I am going to turn to the left" signal is equally fatuous and far more dangerous. 'And now for constructive considerations. I have personally taken this matter up with the Home Office in lengthy correspondence, but am not at liberty to publish it. I think, however, I'am at liberty to publish my ''between the lines'' interpretation of the situation. The Home Office, with entire justification for its action, has been badly let down by the fatuous stupidity of the A.A. recommendations. The Home Office was obviously justified in imagining that the A.A. should know something about the .job, so the fault is entirely at the door of the A.A. But we are' up against the old problem of "how to back down" froip a blunder. The answer is obvious. Those who made the blunder must get over it. The A.A. must ask the Home Office to amend the traffic signals. It is their funeral—not the Home Office's.

. I challenge the A.A. to obtain from the Home Office a statement somewhat as follows: "From the practical experience so far obtained in the use of the recently recommended traffic signals, it is considered that they tend to reduce the dangers of the road." On the contrary, I state quite definitely that they actually increase the dangers of road traffic. And I further challenge the A.A. to obtain a negation from the Home Office to the statement. The Essential Signal.

l'n endeavouring to effect improved safety conditions for road traffic by means of signalled intercommunication, it is fairly obvious in the first place that predominating effort should be concentrated on simplicity. So far as motorists are concerned, the officially-recommended signals are five in number. So far as all the most experienced drivers and the vast bulk of fairly experienced drivers are concerned only two signals are either needed or used j and these are so akin that they could bo (loosely) construed as one —with a minor variation for its alternative use.

Two of the five signals officially recommended are "dead sound"; number two, which is the accepted signal for "I am going to turn to the right," and number four the accepted signal for "I am going to slow down." The point is that the other three are wholly unnecessary if the car ■ is driven even approximately in accordance with correct procedure. Consequently their recommendation not ouly falsifies the ideal of simplicity, but adds to unavoidable dangers by the distinct possibility of misunderstandings. ... The one absolutely* essential signal is that which tells following and oncoming traffic "I am going to turn to the right." As you know, it is given by extending the right arm and hand horizontally from the off side of the car. A Useful Variation. A slight variation of this is the signal for slowing down, the time-honoured one of extending the right arm and slowly moving it up and down. This is rarely essential in" these days, but mny often be useful to following traffic for the simple reason that a driver frequently knows he is going to slow down many yards before he begins actually {Continued at foot of nest column.)

to do so, and can, therefore, save following traffic undue braking by giving early warning of circumstances which may be invisible to drivers behind. The> following quotations are from recent issues of the "Autocar":— "There is only one important signal, and that is the one which shows a proposed turn to the right across the bows of overtaking and approaching vehicles. Were this signal invariably made and never used save to indicate a proposed right _ turn, there would be little need to adopt the other signals in the code." The Maximum Simplicity. In regard to my other point, the same authority says:— '' Further than that, however, an arm signal calling for the extension and retention of the right arm at shoulder level, eve'ii though the arm itself may be moved forward, may possibly be construed by the drivers of following traffic as indicating a proposed turn to the right. Such a mistake might well lead to a serious accident."

I therefore demand that these signals shall be revised, so as to conform with the greater safety of the roads instead of adding to the already many dangers. There is no question that they do add to them, as I know from my own personal experiences, and also that of other motorists who have told me of their "narrow squeaks." We want the maximum of simplicity for these signals, and if a car is driven jiiiy approximately in accord with correct procedure, the maximum of simplicity is all, that is either needed or desirable.