SAFETY ON THE ROADS

Taranaki Daily News, 14 October 1933, Page 3 (Supplement)

SAFETY ON THE ROADS

CONTROL OF PEDESTRIANS. BOUND TO COME SOON. (By Our Motoring Correspondent.) London, Sept. 10. What is there about the House of Lords, so enlightened and progressive in every other aspect of human activity, that induces so many of its members to display bias when it comes to dealing with any question affecting motorists? Whenever a new motoring Bill is introduced for the consideration of their Lordships it may be guaranteed to contain some provisions which are not only unpalatable to car owners, but seek to place them at a disadvantage in the common law with the rest of the community. Onet must, of course, be fair to the House of Lords and concede at once that they are not moved by personal animus against motorists as such. Many of them are themselves motorists, and, consequently, recognise the beneficent effects of car ownership upon the health and social life of the community. No, the hostility to the motoring movement which is suggested by some recent motor Bills, notably those of Lords Danesfort and Moynihan, is obviously based on the belief that car owners are mainly responsible for the incidence of road casualties. Still another Peer, Lord Trenchard, has now associated himself with this view. Lord Moynihan is an eminent surgeon, and Lord Danesfort is a distinguished lawyer. In their own spheres of activity their opinions have all the force .of authority and must command respect. I should not dream of questioning Lord Moynihan’s views on the incidence 'and treatment of appendicitis, nor would I question Lord Danesfort’s interpretation of the terms of a charter-party or of some abstruse point in commercial law. But I am entitled to pay little attention to their views on the special culpability of motorists in the matter of road accidents, except to agree that, if there were no motor vehicles, there would be no motor accidents. CASE OF LORD TRENCHARD. The case of Lord Trenchard is, however, entirely different. He is not only a Peer but Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and in his latter capacity one must hearken to him with a certain amount of attention when he makes a pronouncement on the problem of road accidents. But his latest pronouncement, while attracting attention, has also inspired incredulity—at any rate, among those who can claim to know something of motoring. What Lord Trenchard says, in effect, is that the recent rise in the number of road accidents in the London area can be attributed to the prevalence of less careful driving. If he were to say that this increase in careless driving is confined to London that would be the affair of the London car owners who can, one supposes, look after their own interests. But the inference is that the standard of. driving has deteriorated not only in London, but throughout the country, and here it is necessary to remind Lord Trenchard that outside of London the number of road accidents is showing a tendency to decrease. Now human nature is the same in the Midlands, the North, and the West of England, and it may be assumed that in no particular area has the motorist a monopoly of road sense. Personally, I should imagine that the man who drives a lot in London, with its tremendous traffic, is likely to be a more experienced driver than motorists in less congested parts of the British Isles. If this be true, Lord Trenchard’s contention that the increased toll of the road in London is due to a general loosening of the standard of driving has little merit. UNFAIR GENERALISATIONS. It is only another example of those generalisations that people utter s in their anxiety to see the streets and roads made safer. The situation is not one for recrimination, and as a motorist I bear Lord Trenchard and the Peers who wish to introduce penal and anti-motoring legislation no ill-will. They are all actuated by the same desire to make roads safer. But let not the incidence of accidents warp their sense of fair play. The motor vehicle, as a means of private and commercial transport, has come to stay, and it is in the general interests of humanity that this should be so. It will have to be recognised by those in authority that some control of pedestrian traffic has become essential. It is beside the point to claim that pedestrians had the roads before the motors came. If we start going back far enough we shall find that the main object of the construction of roads was to enable wheeled transport to go quickly from point to point. Having regard to modem traffic conditions, pedestrians must be protected against themselves. They must be brought to recognise that it is as dangerous to cross a road, without proper safeguards, as it is to cross a railway line. The most obvious safeguard is the provision of official crossing places. Let these be abundant, and let the sign “Please Cross Here” have all the sanction of authority. It would be the duty of every motorist to slow down before reaching such a sign, and to stop altogether if he saw even two or three persons assembled on the pavement for the crossing. Pedestrians who crossed the road at other than the official crossing places would do so on their own responsibility. Naturally such crossing places would have the -ffect of slowing down motor traffic somewhat in the cities, but no motorist could object to that. It is in the large towns, and on the outskirts of towns, that most accidents to pedestrians occur, and it is in these areas that the crossing signs would be most numerous. In the open country they would scarcely be necessary.