The Right-hand Rule

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 299, 14 September 1937, Page 13

The Right-hand Rule

Sir,—-The figures given by the Minister of Transport iu regard to the causes of motor accidents are illuminating, but though all drivers are advised to read the Road Code, there can be little doubt that many of these accidents were unavoidable and, in fact, due to the regulations. It is noticeable that far the greatest number of accidents —apart from children and jaywalkers walking into moving vehicles — were due to the ridiculous and dangerous right-hand rule. The right-hand rule was first adopted in France, where the traffic keeps to the right side of the road and the driver sirs on the left, side of the car; and under those conditions it is a sensible rule and has proved a great success. But under our rule of traffic keeping to the left side of the roud, and the driver sitting on the right side of the car, it is simply a deathtrap. In the later models of cars the driver is seated nearer to the back than the front of his car, and consequently cannot see traffic approaching from his right and keeping near to the left side of the road till more than half of his car is projecting right into the track of the oncoming traffic. Then, however promptly he may apply his brakes, he will still move a little further into the track of such traffic. Then it rests with the driver approaching from his right to avoid a collision by swerving toward the right and, if the latter is travelling at the speed of 30 miles an hour which the regulations allows at intersections, a collision is sometimes unavoidable, and the innocent victim of absurd regulations is held responsible.

On the other hand, a left-hand rule would be conducive to comparative safety, for the driver sitting on the right side of the- car would be able to see for some little distance, traffic approaching from the left and keeping to the left side of the road, and by himself keeping as far as permissible toward the centre of the road before reaching the corner —which is quite in order from the fact that no overtaking vehicle is allowed to pass another at an intersection —he would be able to see still further to his left, and, moreover, would have the whole width of the road in which to stop. Dazzling or inadequate lights are given as anothex- cause of accidents. There are very few caused by inadequate lights, for, provided that both the headlights show any light at all. other drivers are quite able to steer clear, as they do when road repairs are lighted by oil lamps. But though dazzling headlights are forbidden, no steps seem to have been taken to enforce this regulation. I drive at night six nights out of seven, and I find that about 75 per cent, of cars (and many motor-cycles) have lights so dazzling that as a precaution 1 am obliged to pull up to dead slow when meet ing them. I think that the majority of drivers are unaware that their lights arc dazzling, and I suggest that inspectors—though we are already overburdened with inspectors of various kinds—should be placed on the roads to stop all cars with dazzling lights. The drivers might Ise given a warning, and a penalty imposed if the fault is not corrected within a reasonable time. I wonder whether it would not be possible by installing a fairly wide projecting rim on the lamps to get rid of the dazzling effect, while still retaining the full power of the lamps straight ahead in the track of the car.—l am, etc., COMMON SENSE. Palmerston North.