CROSSINGS FOR PEDESTRIANS

Southland Times, Issue 23374, 4 December 1937, Page 8

CROSSINGS FOR PEDESTRIANS

Motorists Criticize Present Method

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MINISTER

Lack of uniformity in pedestrian crossings and poor visibility for motorists approaching such crossings were discussed at the quarterly meeting of the South Island Motor Union yesterday. The discussion arose from the following remit from the Automobile Association (Otago): — That the attention of the Transport Department be drawn to the unsatisfactory method adopted in marking pedestrian crossings. This conference is of the opinion that some system of marking these crossings should be undertaken which will provide a more distinctive and promin-

ent warning to motorists when approaching them. A sub-committee, consisting of Messrs W. R. Carey, H. H. Henderson, F. J. Williams, R. Wilson, J. S. Hawkes, F. G. O’Beirne, G. Lawrence and Dr E. E. Porritt, was appointed to discuss proposed improvements for pedestrian crossings which could be forwarded to the Minister of Transport (the Hon. R. Semple) and during the afternoon it presented the following recommendations: —

That as far as possible the crossings be located in accordance with the traffic regulations and not at too frequent intervals. That the crossings be set on two adjacent sides only of the square of an intersection.

That where practicable rests be set in the middle of roadways.

That at a point 30 feet from the crossing, in the centre line of approaching traffic a solid yellow triangle be painted on the roadway to warn motorists they are nearing a crossing. That no parking be allowed within 20 feet of a pedestrian crossing. That all pedestrian crossings be at right angles to the footpath. That the crossings be painted a solid block of colour, yellow, to replace the white now used.

That the Minister of Transport be requested to follow up all avenues in an endeavour to find the most suitable crossing. That a trial be given to the gum strips as used in America. It was decided to send the recommendations to the North Island Motor Union for consideration before being forwarded to the Minister. MOTORISTS’ LIABILITY In moving the adoption of the remit Mr A. E£ Ansell (Otago) said a recent discussion in the Court of Appeal in Great Britain had a bearing on this matter. A motorist was sued for damages by a pedestrian who was injured on a pedestrian crossing, and the judge dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal held that there could be no contributing negligence by a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing when involved in a motor accident. That was a very important decision. “Do these pedestrian crossings give sufficient warning to motorists that they are approaching a crossing?” Mr Ansell asked. “The answer is definitely no. The lines soon wear out and a lot of time and money is spent in painting them, and on a wet night you can hardly see them. Something more definite in the way of marking them should be used.” His association thought the attention of the Transport Department should be drawn to the lack of information on these ‘matters, and the department was doing only half its job in painting those white lines. Mr F. G. O’Beirne, who seconded the motion, said the regulations seemed to allow pedestrians to cross anywhere and a stranger in a town might easily get into difficulties because the authorized crossings were not clearly painted. He had heard of rubber blocks being let into these crossings in some parts of the world.

Mr G. McClelland (South Canterbury) suggested the use ' of domes in the centre of the road to divide traffic. They would, he said, easily be discerned by pedestrians and motorists. Alternatively tapes similar to those used in America could be used, but they should have the signs uniform throughout the Dominion. “This is a very important matter,” said Mr W. R. Carey (Pioneer Amateur Sports Club, Christchurch), “and we see even in your model town of Invercargill that some of the pedestrian crossings are illegible. We should give careful consideration before we ask for the erection of beacons', as there might be serious repercussions.” Mr R. Wilson (South Canterbury) described some of the pedestrian crossings he had seen in other countries. The regulation that crossings should be painted white and of a special design came from the Automobile Associations themselves and it did not seem logical that they should say after three months that they were not satisfactory. The chairman (Dr S. E. V. Brown) said he thought the associations had simply improved on the idea by suggesting the addition of oblique lines. They did not suggest the crossings in the first place. “Our trouble today is the absence of permanency,” said Mr Carey.

Mr Wilson said the trouble was the same in every country. Painted lines would not last on tar surfaces and it was difficult to suggest anything feasible which had not been already tried. The only thing which had given any measure of success was the “stop-go” light for both pedestrians and motorists. The regulations had been in use in New Zealand only a short time, but they had reduced the number of accidents to pedestrians. As far as he could see, most of the crossings were in the wrong place. The question was better left for a while until they saw how they were really going to work. RUBBER BLOCKS SUGGESTED Mr Williams said the Minister of Transport was giving a great deal of study tc this matter. There was a lot to be said in favour of a resting place in the middle of the streets and that might be the system adopted. There was the difficulty, however, as in Dee street, of trams running down the middle of the street. Rubber blocks were also tried in Wellington but though they were expensive they might be cheaper in the long run. Parking should be kept well away from pedestrian crossings so that motorists could have a chance of seeing the crossings. So far as he could see at present, the rubber blocks were the solution of the problem. Mr McClelland said rubber blocks would be too expensive for the smaller towns and he favoured the use of disks oi' domes.

Mr Hawkes asked if it would not be possible to mark the crossings in concrete and Mr Williams replied that concrete had been tried in Australia but it had proved a failure as the narrow concrete would not stand the constant shocks of motor traffic. Dr Porritt said the matter was the most important before the meeting and everything should be done to solve the

problem. Their suggestions should be put before the Minister and he was sure they would receive every consideration.

The opinion that they should not commit themselves to any special method at this juncture was expressed by Mr M. M. Macdonald. Crossings should be marked in a uniform way throughout the Dominion, but they should object to any structure or sign raised above the level of the road, for it would only cause trouble to motorists.

Mr Carey said everyone seemed to be in favour of the remit and, if it were passed, they could set up a subcommittee to deal with the question of permanency of signs. If something were not done it would become a heavy burden on the motorists’ pockets if they were held liable as the decision of the Court of Appeal indicated. Mr Ansell remarked that legislation in England was forcing all the responsibility at these crossings on to the motorists—and rightly so. Something should therefore be done to make some improvement in the crossings. One thing that needed particular attention was the parking of vehicles too near pedestrian crossings. Even if they had made suggestions in the past and experience showed that they were ineffective their job was to see that they were put right and to make definite suggestions to the Minister. The motion was carried unanimously.