RIGHT HAND ROAD RULE

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1930, Page 13

RIGHT HAND ROAD RULE

• CONDEMNATION IN DEBATE CONFUSION AT INTERSECTIONS. LEFT HAND RULE SUGGESTED. The right-hand rule for the'regulation Of motor traffic at intersections was roundly condemned by both sides in a debate held in the Devon Tearooms last night under the auspices of the Taranaki Automobile Association. The motion discussed was: That the regulation of motor traffic by the method known as 'he offside, rule or by the method known as the onside rule is unsatisfactory.” Alternatives to the present rule wore bv each of the speakers. Mr. R; H. Quilliam, who took the affirmative, favoured the adoption of the Vancouver system under which traffic on bv-roads has to stop upon reaching an intersection witli a main road. Mr. R. Day on the negative side, contended the right-hand rule should be replaced bv a left-hand rule. Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., was to have presided but could not attend. In his absence the chair was taken by the Mayor (Mr. H. V. S. Griffiths). There was a large audience of men and women motorists. This,, said Mr. Quilliam, was a subject of considerable interest to everyone whether motorist or not. There eould be no doubt that fast-moving traffic had come to s.tay. It would be impossible to prevent fast-moving vehicles using the roads because such a course would be against common-sense and public opinion. However, fast traffic brought with it attendant evils and it was undoubtedly essential that it should be controlled. „ For a time, continued Mr. Quilliam, traffic regulation did not receive very much attention, but in 1924 the Motor Vehicles Act was brought into operation. That was a serious attempt to cope with an undoubted evil and for the most part it had been fairly successful. However, in at least one respect, he contended, the Act had been a failure in the control and supervision of traffic at intersections.

RIGHT-HAND RULE CONDEMNED.

He had no doubt that most of the accidents, more particularly in the towns, occurred at intersections. For that reason it was essential to have an effective method of control. Under the present system when two vehicles approached an intersection about the same time the rule was that the driver with the other vehicle on his right-hand side had to give way. Mr. Day might advocate the left-hand rule, but Mr. Qilliam maintained that neither the right nor left-hand rule was effective. He admitted he had been one of those who had welcomed the introduction of the right-hand rule. He had hoped it would supply motorists with a guide to their conduct that they would learn subconsciously to observe, thus lessening the number of accident. But he was bound to say that that hope had not been fulfilled. Every day incidents occurred at intersections. They did not always result in accident, but it was plain that since the right-hand rule had been in force a very much larger number of cases concerniiig intersection accidents had been dealt with. The New Plymouth Court records showed that in 1923 there were eight prosecutions for breaches of rules at intersections, whereas in 1929 the number had risen to 40. He admitted that since 1924 there had been a big growth in'motor traffic and that the more serious attempt at traffic control had probably resulted in more eases, but even if they allowed a deduction of 16 for the first factor and eight for the second 'there were still twice as many cases in 1929 as in 1923. Therefore could the rule be said to be effective when five years after its. introduction so many intersection accidents were occurring? He maintained it had failed because it was an arbitrary rule taking no account of the fact that there were roads of varying importance, main roads and by-roads. For instance, Devon Street was an important main road and Baring Terrace a road that a great many people had probably never heard of; yet traffic in Devon Street had to give way to vehicles on the right coming out of the terrace. Again, the right-hand rule had been regarded and was still being regarded as synonymous with right-of-way the rmht to go ahead on the assumption that the other man would stop, though in a great many cases he did not. It was no answer to say that Supreme Court judges and magistrates throughout New Zealand had emphasised that the rule did not confer a right-of-way; the fact had to be faced that it was so regarded by the general public. As a matter of fact the rule was confusing. One frequently saw drivers appear to hesitate at corners before they could decide whether the other motorist was on their right or left and what they should do under the circumstances. If that sort of thing occurred then the rule was subject to criticism. A COUNSEL OF PERFECTION.

Another weakness was that it was a counsel of perfection. It told people what to do under certain circumstances, but unless they observed all the other rules as well—such as those regarding speed and keeping to the correct side of the road —it became of little value. Mr. Quilliam advocated the adoption of the rule he had seen operating successfully in Vancouver —the rule that vehicles on by-roads must actually stop at intersections before entering the main roads. He contended that if this were enforced in New Zealand it would be practically impossible for an accident to happen at intersections with the main road of Devon Street. It might entail a small amount of inconvenience but he refused to admit that should be a bar where it would result in saving damage to property and life. The difficulty of defining’ the main roads and the by-roads - could bo overcome. There could be no disputes about speeds and no court cases involving the right-haffd rule. The only thing to prove would be whether the driver had come to a dead stop at the corner; if he had not he would be to blame.

Mr. Day contended that the introduction of Mr. , Quilliam’s system would entail clearly sign-posting all the corners. “I think signs are a complete failure,” he said. “Familiarity breeds contempt. How many motorists obey the best-known sign in the Dominion, ‘Stop! Look out for the Engine?’ He maintained that despite these warnings railway crossing accidents had

greatly increased in number; He considered it just as likely for an accident to occur in a suburban street as in Devon Street. Signs were difficult to see, especially at night, and the cost involved in properly lighting all the corners and sign-posting them effectively would be enormous. He considered the best idea for the prevention of railway accidents was the construction of corrugations in the road approaching both sides of the crossing. When passing over such patches the motorist could not fail to remember that there was a railway near. • RIGHT-HAND RULE IS WRUNG. Like the system of number-plates, which was by no means fool-proof, the right-hand rule was imported from Amerima, but the importers had entirely forgotten that in America it was used in conjunction with the “drive on the right” rule. Here, however, motorists drove on the left of the ?oad, so that the right-hand rule had been grafted on to a left-hand country. If the importers of the rule had had the sense to have reversed the rule to a left-hand-rule to suit the road practice of the Dominion this debate would not have been held.

Other traffic ruies bore on, the question. , It did not .seem to be generally understood that the law was that a corner or other dangerous part of the road must be approached at a speed allowing the driver to stop within half the distance he could see. A commonsense observance of that rule would obviate accidents. He would advocate a set of rules -capable of translation into three or four .concise, and easily■ remembered phrases: “Keep to the left,” to which the adoption of the left-hand rule would be added, “and turn to the left.” “There is a bigger fool round the next corner, so drive slowly.” “Don’t argue with the man at the bridge.”

In these days, continued Mr. Day, traffic moved so fast that one had to think and act in split seconds. A car travelling at 45 miles an hour moved 66 feet a second or over six feet in a-tenth of a second. It was necessary to act very quickly but if from the time of learning, to drive the “Keep to the left and turn to the left” principle was drilled in it would become automatic. “Reverse the right-hand rule and motorists will have plenty of room to get round the corners,” said Mr. Day, who illustrated his various points on large road charts. The left-hand rule, he said, would enable one motorist to turn a corner behind the other. Under the right-hand rule it was quite possible for four cars to be simultaneously at an intersection and none able to move.

Mr. Day criticised Mr. Quilliam’s suggestion, claiming it would still be necessary to make rules for cars in the same street approaching one another at a cross-street.

In reply, Mr. Quilliam said the majority of railway crossing accidents occurred at places where control could not be effectively exercised. He maintained his idea - gave the road hog the least possible scope. It .was a system that worked well in Canada. Being a national rule for New Zealand, the signs necessary would be known from one end of the country to the other. Most people motored within a certain area about their place of residence and would soon get to know the main and byroads, while, knowing the general rule to stop, a stranger would naturally look out for the classifications. His was a eommonsense rule and as such people would be more likely to observe it. At present trouble arose when a motorist assumed there was no other motorist on the road; it would be better to make him stop. " A number of questions were answered, after which Dr. A. R. Andrew proposed a vote of thanks to the debaters and Mr. F. H. Blundell to the Mayor. Supper was served.