CROSSING THE STREET

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 91, 14 October 1935, Page 10

CROSSING THE STREET

MORE RISKY DAILY

FRESH TRAFFIC PROBLEMS

(By "Wet Bitumen.")

Wellington street traffic continues to bring fresh problems to perplex those endeavouring to frame ths bylaws to suit, new conditions, and some matters have not been so far included in the regulations, though traffic officers and others concerned offer advice, which is not always followed. There is at present in the city bylaws nothing to say whether a pedestrian should cross the street in front oC a vehicle which he has just got put of, or behind it. The practice is to advise the pedestrian to proceed at once to the nearest footpath, and from that point of safety reconnoitre the street he wishes to cross.

It is not long since buses in city streets were unknown, and there ■is no doubt that the introduction of fairly [ extensive bus traffic brings problems quite different from those to which the public "were accustomed in the case of the - trains. The tram stops i some distance out from the footpath; the - bus pulls in alongside it. No motor, vehicle may pass_ a stationary tram car,, which it has overtaken, which means that the way between the tram and the footpath on the same side of the road as the tram is for the time as safe as the footpath itself. There, is nothing in the bylaws, on the other, hand, to prevent a motor vehicle passing a'bus pulled up at the kerb.

A pedestrian alighting from a tram car.'and .one leaving a bus therefore present .quite different conditions. It is .considered' safer for the pedestrian alighting from a tram car, who wishes to cross the road at that point; to cross in,.front of thevehicle he has just left; indeed, it'is considered' inadvisable to' cross the road behind it. Crossing behind the tram, vision of the stream "df traffic coming down the opposite side of :the street is obscured by the tram until it has been passed, but while" crossing in front of the tram the pedestrian -is looking: directly at-the ■approaching road traffic ■ from the time;he starts. ,■ ]

The bus position is almost the opposite,'owing .to the stream .of traffic w:hich is allowed to pass that stationary vehicle. In this case it is definitely safer Ho cross-behind, and this applies.notf only to buses, but to all privately-owned. motor vehicles. The reason' is that, crossing .in front of tile motor'vehicle the pedestrian has just left, his vision of traffic coming the same way as ,he travelled is obscured from view .until he is on its route,' and moreover he is invisible to-the- motorist coming.in this direction until he steps out beyond his own conveyance.,' , Thus neither motorist nor, pedestrian has a.clear view of each other's 'movements until. the. element of danger,is introduced.-and the danger increases with the width of the obscUring vehicle. ... ..';

It is ' doubtful' whether the : extent of .vehicular, traffic in the city would justify, periodic stoppage of road traffic, at. all intersections even in the centre of the i city. 'At present the intersections controlled by the traffic lights' are too far apart to be made compulsory for use by pedestrians. At certain times,' however, there is sufficient vehicular traffic to justify periodical stops where pedestrian traffic is also heavy.. The fact, that, no very, definite speed limit is enforced in the city makes some form of protection by regulation for" both parties advisable. Where :there is a stream of motor traffic proceeding in fairly close ordei at.speeds up to or over the 25 miles ah. hour, permitted, by regulation,, the motorist who applies brakes full on may £ause casualties amongst his own fraternity,"while on days when the bitumen is greasy, /-the pedestrian caught unawares has little chance. Without interfering with the rights Of the pedestrian, observance of a fixed rule. for leaving- vehicles' to cross the street could be- inculcated. It would minimise some of the present dangers, and, give motorists an idea of what to expect.