RIGHTS, NOT RISKS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23335, 29 October 1937, Page 17

RIGHTS, NOT RISKS

HAVEN TO MOTORISTS NOT ALWAYS TO BLAME SAFEGUARDING PEDESTRIANS FROM THEMSELVES It is clear in the minds of ali people that motors "and motorists can harm pedestrians, but is it equally clear that pedestrians can harm motorists? Where a motorist by criminal negligence maims a pedestrian, he deserves all the shock to his system and the penalties. Where he maims a pedestrian through unavoidable accident, he suffers shock to nerve and system which cannot be prevented, writes W. A. Church in the Motor. But where the accident is caused by the criminal negligence of the pedestrian, why should the motorist suffer shock and loss, without some measure of compensation? That seems fair. What is so unfair is that the public at large ascribes the blame for all road accidents to motors. Of course, if no motors existed, then such accidents could not occur. But, as motors are part of modern life, then such an argument cannot be valid. So, modern people must be taught how to adapt themselves to modern conditions; and responsibility, blame, and penalty must be properly apportioned. In Great Britain it seems that pedestrians are allowed to risk their own lives and those of motorists without proper authoritative warnings. All the injunctions are directed towards the motorist. As every citizen is a pedestrian part of the time and the vast majority are pedestrians all of the time, our Government should safeguard pedestrians. Similarly, as cyclists number millions, it is equally important to

safeguard them also. At present this is done only by the negative means of dragooning the motorist and lecturing him and him alone. This has not eliminated the avoidable toll of the roads. Needs of the Masses Concentration on 5,000,000 motorists will never safeguard 40,000,000 non-motorists. It is necessary to consider the masses of road users, without denying that pedestrians have legal rights to the use of the roads. The need for this is apparent in many ways. Take the use of pedestrian crossings as one example. Where a notice happens to be erected, it rarely is more than the request 'Please Cross Here." Emphasis on the " Please'" is necessary, because it implies an option to use or not to use, which pedestrians recognise. As yet they feel no compulsion to use such crossings, nor are steps taken to inculcate in them even a sense of compulsion. There are very few of these requests, and none is consistently observed. The grotesque anomaly is that pedestrian crossings are motorist warnings; studded or painted crossings at which he must stop, or pass at a peril which is backed by laws and penalties. Some are flanked by beacons, sc that the warning becomes a threat to the motorist, but without havinp. any safety significance for the pedestrian, so that the risk of the jay walker is increased by that of the pedestrian's haven which walkers need not,' and often refuse to, use. That alone illustrates and illuminates the need to change the outlooks of pedestrians fcr their own safety's sake Should : they not be educated, if not controlled? Old usages of the road should be revised, new codes introduced; road codes for both cyclists and pedestrians. I Promoting Pedestrian Welfare It is necessary to introduce legislation to safeguard the pedestrian from himself. This is not a frivolous suggestion. An analysis of the

verdicts 01 coroners' juries will prove that; they often exonerate the motorists, but, unfortunately, such exonerations are not published with the figures of the " toll of the road,'.' with the result that the public tend to ascribe all the blame for all accidents to motorists. Walkers recognise no new responsibility, so accept no blame. Apart from the unfairness of this, the pedestrian is confirmed in his old-world risky use of the i roads, and all the while the creation of additional motorist restrictions encourages him in his errors. If he thinks of the toll of the roads his mind is on his rights rather than his risks. He seems to grow more assured that the motorist is a menace with no rights. It is all too one-sided. Pedestrian crossings ought to mean that walkers should use those crossings. Why not insist that they shall? At least they should be educated to do so. Much good should result from educating all pedestrians, for it follows that the majority can best be safeguarded by educating the majority, and not only by penalising and blaming the Tiinority. The Cyclist Then there is the cyclist and the risks the authorities allow him to run. Nobody questions his rights on the road, but the ever-overtaken cycle should notify its presence. There is an anomaly in the compulsory carrying of a red light by the motor and only a glass reflector by the cycle. The danger to cyclists on dark and badly lighted roads is considerable. They do. not seem to know this; should they not be told? An analysis of accidents must show that many cyclists are struck, therefore every step to avoid such accidents should be taken, as even the most ardent defender of the rights of the cyclists will agree. Putting the onus on the driver of the faster vehicle is not sufficient. Behind all this is the important thought that the road toll can be reduced by the creation of road codes for pedestrians and cyclists. If all users have road rights, then all must have road responsibilities, and they should be defined in the light of modern usage of roads. To have laws for one class of road user only is unfair, or one law out of the past for walkers and cyclists and another in the present for motorists. Codes are of no use unless they are studied. Some means must be found for getting a copy of the Highway Code into the hands of cyclists, walkers and' other road users, and all must abide by its provisions. Separate publications might simplify distribution. Responsibility for All If this contention is considered judicially from safety points of view, instead of pro-motorist and anti-motorist points of view, the sanity will be seen. The only cure is the comprehensive cure. Comparative failure must ensue if all the considerations apply to motorists. The responsibilities of all need to be laid down.