USE OF MOTOR HORNS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 242, 9 July 1938, Page 13

USE OF MOTOR HORNS

Restriction To Be Imposed By Regulation

BY-LAWS DISALLOWED AU by-laws in New Zealand relating to the sounding of warning devices on motor-vehicles have ben disallowed. In making this announcement, yesterday, the Minister of Transport, Hon. R. Semple, said he proposed to deal with the sounding of warning devices by regulation. Uniformity would „be achieved and the usual excuse for ‘ excessive horn-blowing” in built-up areas would be removed. "The Road Safety Council, at its meeting in February, unanimously recommended me to disallow by-laws requiring the use of a horn,or'Other warning device on approaching intersections in urban areas,” said Mr. Semple. "The council expressed the opinion that it was not conducive to good driving to require the horn to tie sounded at every cross-road, and indeed the better driver was the man who did not use the horn in these circumstances, It was considered that the good driver should not 'be put in the position either of using the horn or of breaking the law.” Mr. Semple said that a special subcommittee of the Road Safety Council made a very thorough investigation of the question and obtained evidence from overseas. The recommendations of the sub-committee went much further than it was proposed to go at the present time.

“As used by many drivers," said Mr. Semple, "the horn is merely a declaration that they are on the road and that all other drivers must look out. The louder the blast at an intersection, generally the faster the speed of approach. 'Drive on your vision, not on the other fellow’s hearing,’ should be the rule.”

The Road Safety Council believed that the all-too-prevalent practice of unnecessary horn-blowing went beyond the creation of nerve-deranging noise, said Mr. Semple. It robbed the true emergency signal of much of its effect; it encouraged speeding and reckless approach to bends, corners and intersections; it tended to embarrassment and confusion of other users of roads and streets. The council considered that there were cases in a city where the blowing of a born was justifiable, as to warn a pedestrian who was about, to place himself in danger or to warn a car ahead, but generally speaking, the safe driver in built-up areas should find no need whatever, apart from cases -of emergency, to sound his horn. "On country roads the position may be different,” said the Minister. “There the element of nuisance is not present, and in remote districts the horn has its greatest justification. The more sparsely settled the district the less the road user is likely to expect other traffic.

"In cities, however, the value of the horn as a warning device is smothered by a mass of unnecessary and unintelli-gently-npplied sound. The council is definitely of the opinion that if the use of the horn is restricted the horn will gain immeasurably in effectiveness and safer driving will result.”