PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 47, 24 August 1939, Page 12

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I read with interest the Mayor's recent comments regarding observance of the traffic rules at pedestrian crossings in Wellington. Although there are still frequent glaring cases of disregard by drivers of the rights of pedestrians using the crossings, I am satisfied from my observations as a pedestrian that as far as the mid-city crossings are concerned many Wellington drivers respect the law giving the pedestrian the right of way. The improvement is very noticeable after a visit to Christchurch, where the person on foot who presumes to cross when a motor is approaching frequently has to jump to ensure his survival. But in the Wellington suburban streets the pedestrian is seldom accorded the right of way. Here the motorist is travelling faster than, in the city streets, and there is comparatively little pedestrian traffic crossing the street at any particular point. The motor-driver does not worry about giving precedence to the foot traveller in these areas and most pedestrians are in fact content to await their opportunity to cross, knowing that the delay will be negligible. Why the City Council persists in marking and renewing the many crossings in the suburbs is hard to understand. They are quite unnecessary except perhaps near schools, where, they can be used to concentrate the child traffic on to definite crossing lanes. Elsewhere there is normally little need to pull up the cars to let the pedestrian cross. There is seldom sufficient motor traffic to cause an appreciable delay to pedestrians, nor does the volume of foot traffic at many of the crossing points warrant special consideration. A very typical case in point is the authorised crossing marked some weeks ago over Kelburn Parade where it junctions with Glasgow Street. This crossing is located exactly where a stream of pedestrians going to work in the morning crosses what is probably one of the busiest suburban thoroughfares in Wellington. But what is the procedure here? Prior to the introduction of the crossing the pedes- j trian very willingly gave the motorist the right of precedence. Since the legal crossing has been provided the party who is entitled to this precedence is of course the pedestrian. But the party who actually secures the precedence is still the motor driver—and the pedestrian still seems quite happy to let him. Despite the comparatively heavy amount of traffic here for a suburban street, it is seldom that the person on foot has to wait more than a very few seconds for a clear road. He invariably prefers to wait those few seconds for a safe passage than to assert his newly-provided rights with a possibility of damage to his person. What is the use of providing crossings p.t such places? They are merely an unnecessary expense. They are not enforceable, nor is there any real need to give precedence to the pedestrian in suburban streets. The existence of such crossings, ignored by motorist and pedestrian alike and desired by neither, will only help to bring the whole policy of providing authorised crossings into disregard. Let the council use some judgment and discretion in providing these crossings and save their paint in the suburbs. It can be well utilised for the crossings in the city area! —I am, etc., A. J. WALKER.