PEDESTRIAN AND MOTOR MANNERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 15, 18 July 1939, Page 8

PEDESTRIAN AND MOTOR MANNERS

* "People living in Wellington," said Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court yesterday, "know they can't always rely on vehicles stopping when they are on the crossings, but strangers, who don't know that, may suffer." No greater censure could be passed on the motorists of any city, and to a large number of Wellington motorists the Judge's statement accurately applies! The motorist observes the crossingpedestrians closely to form an opinion as to whether they are the kind of people who can be bluffed, and, if he decides that they can, he makes a dash. That kind'of thing, which persists in spite of the road manners crusade, should be stopped with a heavy hand, and it is to be hoped that the jury's presentment concerning the rights of pedestrians on crossings, and the Judge's endorsement of it, will be effective, both at Exhibition time and all the time. But, without any apologies for or to motorists, it may be pointed out that pedestrians show similar characteristics. Observe them in their own element, on the footpath. At various busy traffic hours an average stretch of city footpath— the stretch, for instance, on the western side of Willis Street, between Stewart Dawson's corner and the Hotel St. George—carries a great number of pedestrians, some of whom loiter or stop, others walk slowly, while a few are racing along. The racers go off their own half of the footpath on to the half of the footpath properly belonging to the traffic stream coming against them, with inevitable collisions between the racing individuals and the opposing individuals who, though within their rights, are pushed aside. The authorities do nothing in these matters, but do sometimes move on loiterers.

The secondary offence—that of racing round loiterers or slow-movers and shouldering a way through the opposing traffic stream—is not excused by the primary offence of loitering; and it is time that some authority look action against both offences. On a narrow footpath, with two streams of traffic, each stream containing slow-motion pedestrians and fast-motion pedestrians, to race round the slow people hi front of one, when the rest of the footpath is already occupied by people within their rights, should be made an offence. When a fast-motion pedestrian can use the other half of the footpath because it is bare of people, the practice may be permissible, but it is being abused by young people, who make a specialty of shouldering their way through opposition. Equally inexcusable is loitering when it is not excused by age or infirmity. Loquacious groups should be broken up, and offenders should be prosecuted. And this trouble is not confined to the footpaths. It is noticeable on the pedestrian crossings, where the hesitant pedestrians and the fast-motion pedestrians get into tangles, round which (and off the chalked area) other pedestrians make their way. The fluiidity of pedestrian traffic on crossings is as important as is the regulation of motor speed; and if that class of motorists to which Mr. Justice Reed refers can be suppressed, there.will be no remaining excuse for pedestrian loitering on crossings, apart from the excuses already specified. Generally speaking, it can be said that the root of the trouble is selfish speed and a jay mentality, splendid examples of both of which can be found at any crossing or.on any footpath.