Speed Control

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20261, 9 November 1935, Page 10

Speed Control

A good word for the speed limitation in built-up areas In Britain appears in an editorial in the “Riley Record,” which says:— "Efforts are still needed to ensure that safe, open stretches of road are not included in the 30 m.p.h. limits, while narrow and twisty portions of highway remain unrestricted. Considerable vigilance is thus essential. Although nearly every experienced motorist was opposed to the 30 m.p.h. limits, it cannot be denied now that its introduction has had a considerable effect on reducing the toll of the road. Formerly one was inclined to say that the Minister of Transport had introduced too many innovations at a time, and one did not know whether to thank the beacons, the pedestrian crossings, or the limits for the satisfactorily decreasing accident rate. "One of the most marked changes in the weekly accident returns is that

moderate accident records. “There are a few drivers who have so many accidents that they may be considered to be ‘ accident prone.’ Although their elimination would not reduce the total number of accidents by a large percentage, it is important that they be sought out and either kept off the road or their accident tendencies corrected.”

In answer to the question, “Do you believe it advisable to re-examine drivers and an increase in premiums operators at stated intervals?" 51 per cent, said “Yes" and 49 per cent. “No.” Eighty-six per cent, of the queried motorists answered "Yes” to the question, “Do you believe that a reduction in insurance premiums £or good drivers and an increase in premiums for careless drivers would help to prevent accidents?" Fourteen per cent, answered “No.”

Other details of the report deal with braking ability of cars, safe approach speed, safe follow distances, safe passing distances, capacity of highways, cost of highway illumination, relative blinding effect of headlights, braking reaction time, pedestrian habits, tyre conditions, and observing of traffic laws.

THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING

the death roll among pedestrians, which used to be the biggest on the list, is now the lowest, while the proportion of pedestrians injured has decreased enormously. This change dates from March 18, when the speed limit was introduced, and inevitably one must draw the conclusion that the speed limit has had a great effect in increasing the safety of those on foot. When you come to think of it, it is only natural that the elderly, among whom unfortunately, the accident rate is still heaviest, are now able to judge more accurately the speed of approach of automobiles. When a car is approaching at 30 m.p.h., the pedestrian has more time to cross the road than when it is approaching at 50 m.p.h. On the other hand, other road users, notably cyclists, are inclined to take increasingly greater risks, on the assumption that no car is doing more than 30 m.p.h. in .built-up areas and therefore entirely failing to realise the terrific acceleration up to 30 m.p.h. which many modem cars possess. Consequently, a cyclist who is well able to ride at 30 m.p.h. will often put his head down and scorch across the road in front of an approaching car, only to find that the car, although it may be doing under 30 m.p.h., has reached him all too quickly. It must not be forgotten, too, that while it has been a boom year for motoring, it has likewise been a boom year for cycling. There are more cyclists on our roads than ever before and it is inevitable that the number, though not the proportion, of careless cyclists have increased.

“There is only one road to safety, and that is to construct, with the least possible delay, highways that are really suitable not only for to-day’s traffic, but for traffic ten, twenty, or thirty years hence. The fact that the loud-mouthed minority of cyclists are opposed to special cycling paths should be Ignored. Any intelligent person can foresee what traffic conditions will be like in another ten years, but none can say that there will not be a change of front in the attitude of cyclists as a whole. Let the vast resources of 'the Road Fund be devoted forthwith to the construction of broad roads on

drivers are genuinely considerate, but quite a proportion just blast their way along with no consideration whatever for anything but themselves.

Rules and regulations are all very well, and it is all very well talking about legislation for this and legislation for that. You cannot legislate potholes out of"a road; neither can you legislate bicycles off it, nor people either, for that matter, unless you first provide them with somewhere as good, or better, to go.

These are views in which many people will concur. It to one of the weaknesses of special taxation of motoring for road purposes that the idea is prevalent that motorists are responsible for the highways they use. Roads are a matter of public concern and should not be regarded as a prerogative of any one section of road users, neither should any one section of users be asked to carry the whole burden of roading. Though it may seem a little difficult to understand why pedal cyclists in Britain should object to being drafted off on to special tracks it is quite understandable, for they have always been used to good road surfaces and to riding in traffic, and we all know how strong is the urge in human nature to object to any change that seems to throw some kind of a slight upon us. The pedal cyclist is not being slighted; the time will come when he will realise how greatly he is being helped. The pedal cyclist in New Zealand is in quite a different category. Until the advent of the paved road through motor taxation he did not know what it was to have a really good surface to travel upon. The roads of the old days were execrable from the cycling point of view and the consequence was that here and there special cycling tracks were provided. These tracks once upon a time were very popular, and, it is to be noted, popular not only with cyclists but with the pedestrian. The bane of the old cy"le track was the fact that pedestrians were always to be found upon it, and their presence both day and night was constantly resented by the cyclist. Accidents were common, more common even than accidents between cyclists and cars to-day, though, of course, the effects were not so serious.

Special taxation, unfortunately, has had the effect of the whole energy of road work being spent on making highways for motoring. Other interests, in the main, have gone by the board. Cycle tracks used to be appreciated because they were better than the roads, but all that is changed now. The road surfaces have steadily improved and the cycle tracks have as steadily deteriorated. It is useless asking either the cyclist or the pedestrian to keep off the road if the road provides the only comfortable travel for them. Both have an absolute right to consideration, and both should be provided for. The ideal highway necessarily calls for a pedestrian way; to ask people to stumble along the rough edge bordering miles of smooth pavement is to ask the impossible, nor can it be achieved by force. Pedestrian control has never worked; only pedestrian consideration will work. So also it is with the cyclist. The actual facts of pedestrian control are simply that the police are pushed aside. America knows this; she has had the law over and over again, and still has it, but nowhere has It ever worked, has it been possible to enforce It, least of all in places where it is needed most, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and the rest. Pedestrian control Is mere paper talk; the only thing that can possibly work is consideration.