The Waipawa Mail FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1938. BUGBEARS OF THE ROAD.

Waipawa Mail, Volume LXVI, Issue 68, 25 February 1938, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1938. BUGBEARS OF THE ROAD.

'po offend the ear and the eye, the two most essential organs of sense in the human body, has been recognised in recent years as something of an offence against society itself, and in consequence a concerted effort has been made to check noise and glare in most of the civilised communities of the world. In this campaign two instruments with which motor cars are equipped—the horn and headlights—have been singled out for special criticism. The use and abuse of the motor horn affects all members of the community within earshot; the headlights of the vehicle affect by their dazzling glare particularly the drivers of other vehicles and road-users generally. The case against excessive resort to the horn as a warning—almost against the use of the horn at all—is well set out in a report by a sub-committee submitted to the New Zealand Road Safety Council. The point is made that the horn was introduced as a warning device when motors were few and far between and the public was still, in the main, unconscious of their existence and had to be roused to take notice of their approach and act accordingly. Those days are long past and the presence of a motor vehicle on almost any road, even in the remotest parts of the country, is normal and no novelty. u Unfortunately,’’ says the report, “the earlier notions persist, not only in the minds of many motorists, but also in the by-laws of most local authorities, and, generally speaking, it is an offence under by-law to approach, with a view to crossing, any intersection without sounding the horn or other warning device.” The consequence in streets crossed by numerous intersections is an j almost constant succession of boots of the horn most trying to workers in the adjoining buildings. The report emphasises that the evil of this all too prevalent practice of unnecessary horn-blow-ing goes beyond the creation of nerve-deranging noise. It (a) robs the emergency warning of much of its effect; (l>) it encourages speedy and reckless approaches to bends, corners, and intersections; (c) it tends to the embarrassment and confusion of other users pf roads and streets. A moment’s thought will convince any reasonable person of the validity of the case against this over-frequent use of the motor horn. It is significant that, as a rule, the better the driver the less use he makes of the horn. It is not contended—nor would any sensible motorist or other road-

user contend—that the horn should not be used at all. There are obvious occasions where a warning is demanded, but these are cases of emergency and exceptions to the rule. In many cities of the world the use of the horn is prohibited within certain limits and certain hours. There is no reason why the community in New Zealand should not take up the same attitude. The danger of the glaring headlight has always been a problem of motor road transport and it is not yet solved. There are, however, certain devices now installed in motor vehicles which do mitigate the evil of the dazzling headlight in the eyes of road-users coming in the opposite direction to its rays. It is contended in some quarters that the installation and use of these devices should be statutory and compulsory. Speaking at the annual conference of the New Zealand Institute of Engineers at Dunedin the chairman (Mr H. F. Toogood) said: — Of all the offences committed on the road there is none more serious than that of the driver who blinds oncoming motorists with his glaring headlights. Yet men are allowed to use the road with these menacing headlights and we never hear of a prosecution. It is true that many accidents are ascribed to headlight dazzle, but most of the older types of car still on the road are not fitted with devices for dipping the beam, and so can hardly avoid dazzling the oncomer. "Whether the compulsory equipment of all ears with dipping devices should be entertained as a practicable measure of reform is a matter for the authorities. It would certainly cause hardship and expense to many motorists. In time, this evil of the glaring headlight, as also the excessive use of the horn, will tend to disappear. The only question is of the necessity of steps to facilitate the departure. A realisation of the circumstances by the general body of motorists would certainly ease the present situation.