MOTOR ACCIDENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 239, 9 October 1928, Page 17

MOTOR ACCIDENTS.

"CUTTING-IK."

THE VERY SLOW DRIVER.

A DANGEROUS HABIT,

THEORY OF CAUSES.

HOW MAY THEY BE AVOIDED?, '-

(By R. J. LAND.)

Id view of the numerous articles, bo% from local writers and extracts from the world's leading papers btt motor transportation, the trials and tribulations of my friend Brown may be; of interest to the increasing number ol motorists, and those connected with,, the: question of motor transportation, and' arouse a new trend of . thought. Brown is the average motorist possessing ordinary knowledge and ' careful according to his own lights, not particularly brainy, but anxious to obey the laws of the land; having led an exemplary life until he fell .from grace, and bought a motor car.,. The yendor gives him sufficient driving lessons, for him, with luck, to ;pass his test and , become" 1 ' licensed' by " law to drive this dangerous machine. Note: Neither instructor or tester devote much time to finding ;out if-Brown possesses any other than a rudimentary knowledge pf driving a dangerous motor vehicle. Ho is not called upon to pass examination other than the usual driving; test, signals, etc. Whether his mental reaction when faced with an emergency, is one or,,,ten seconds, whether his power of anticipation is present or absent, is more or less unr known. (Would mention here that the average mental reaction of 200 taxi drivers tested on an American machine designed for this.-purpose was 1 1-5 seconds, Whilst a number were as high as two seconds. Personally, I consider, 'at least half a second unnecessary, even when the driver is expecting an emergency. These tests are regularly takep f>y the! Yellow Cab Coy., of Chicago, where 1000 men are tested each month. Considering a .motor vehicle travels 29.2 feet per second, at 20 miles per hour, and that the duration of time from where the dangerous ; situation is created until the collision occurs, is approximately seldom more than two seconds, no further comment should be necessary to show the necessity of some such tests before a man is accepted; as * competent motorist. %% He is then turned loose on the helpless public, who, as far as Brown is able to subsequently judge, neither possess brains or consideration, and are i not legally called on to exercise reasonable

He reads, this, that everything else being equal the motorist on his left-hand side shall give Way to him; in other words "he' 'las preference; Query, wfcat preference? How far? How long? Personally,. I aql unable .to help Brown solve these questions. - - j The next problem Is: "A driver having a restricted vision of 40ft must not drive more thait 10< nupJt* Presumably this rule suggests speed depends on vision,, hut there is nothing definite to say so or in what relationship. Brown about jicilbses the rule'book, trusts to providehce and his "own judgment, with Slianilt, Vlcc«p<i on Jii- -

creasing, likewise legal argument. This is why we ; agree with Brown and believe, the first step is the correction of our present indefinite rules and interpretation of same. My personal understanding of reasonable speed is as follows, arrived at from deduction:—Two stationary objects cannot collide, therefore, movement or speed is the starting point.'oA learned judge has stated or ruled, in Dr. Martin's" case, wherein owing to dimmed headlights a pedestrian walking in the roadway was killed, "No motorist shall drive faster than his vision allows, and if he cannot see he must stop."* Accept this and we have: Speed

■ - In due course he, buys a copy of the Motor Vehicles Act and 5 motor regulations, and .so far; as his money allows, the by-laws of the.:hundred-' and .one different boroughs scattered f throughout New Zealand. With these, and the limited time at his disposal, he seelra to understand What it is all.-about, ?and find, with the, exception pi-l the rule, "Keep to the left," the principal " ones lacking sufficient clarity for him to understand. , As. an example:-rr?Every person commits an offence, and is liable on summaiy; conviction, fine Of one hundredl pounds or to , imprisonment for three : months, who recklessly or neglif gently - drives 4. motor vehicle on any road, street, or other place, to' which the' public have access, whether as of right or not, or who drives any such 'vehicle at a speed orin a manner which, having regard to all circumstances o the case, is or might be dangerous to the. public ,or .to ahy person, or who, wrhile -in < a ' state of intoxication is in charge of any motor-vehicle on any such rc.id, street or place." f Being desirous bf knowing what this jeally means, ...lie inquires from those best qualified inform him, only to be ;iold, - "Oh, that depends on circumstances" which does n<9t help him a great deal. In the event .of being involved' in an accident the magistrate, helped by sundry witnesses, will probably clear this, .question up for him (more or less to liis dissatisfaction) so far as this particular case only is concerned. Brown then comes to the "Offside Rule" see- Motor Regulations, page 52, which reads as follows:— "Every driver of a motor vehicle, when approaching any intersection, the traffic at which is not for the time being controlled by a police; officer or traffic inspector, and to which any other, vehicle (inclusive of trams) is approaching, so that if both continued on their course there would* be the; possibility of a collision shall, if such vehicle (being other than.a tram) is approaching from his right, or is such .a vehicle (being a tram) is approaching from any direction before him, and, if necessary for that, purpose, stop his vehicle, and no driver, of a motor .vehicle . shall increase the speed of his vehicle, when approaching any intersection under the circumstances set out .in this clause."

is controlled by vision and, reasonable speed then is clearly defined, as follows: A reasonable speed is a speed at which a motorist, after the first reasonable vision of danger is obtainable, can, stop his vehicle before arriving at the point of intersection, wherein an emerging •vehicle can only be seen a ?ew feet away, the speed must be reduced proportionately. With unrestricted vision 30 to 40 miles per hour would be equally safe and, therefore, reasonable. It is only a few short years ago when speed was based on horse-drawn vehicles, the control of which was dependent on faulty or no brakes at all and the ability to control the horse. The first self-propelled vehicle had to be proceeded by a man walking carrying a flag, presumably five miles per hour must have been considered a reckless speed. Theb years ago, 20 miles per hour was looked on as quite reasonable. To-day 30 miles per hour is considered by many to be a reckless speed, yet to-day we have four-wheel brakes, unknown ten yeais ago, which are capable of stopping approximately in onerthird less than tha old-two-brake vehicle...lh other words it isi as safe and reasonable todrive the former at 30 miles per hour, as it is the latter 20 miles per hour. ■f The "Off-Side" rule, as -'given, Is "in s universal use throughout New Zealand, being part of our motor regulations. Owing to different - interpretations - of same, however, Brown 'and many others are compelled oa; their own judgement. His idea, andwebelieve the idea of motorist is* he -is |

obeying the letter of the law, if he drives his vehicle in and about the city area, in traffic with a clear vision at 15 to 20 miles per hour, increasing this speed in the suburbs and country to 25 to 30 miles per hour and that at these speeds any driver" emerging or attempting to cross his path from the left-hand side will give him preference. Summarising the foregoing we have: Can indefinite laws be obeyed or enforced ?

Is it. necessary for public safety to restrict" motor transportation speed to 15-18 miles per hour, given definite laws and traffic efficiently controlled ?

Given clearly understandable definite rules and laws and enforcement of same, there is no excuse for an ignorant,-care-less or reckless driver or pedestrian. No necessity for long drawn out contentious, costly and usually unsatisfactory legal argument. As there is little or no legal knowledge involved, fixing the onus of an accident should be within the mental powers of any ordinary motorist, and this realisation of his liabilities (legal if not moral) would tend towards care and reduction of accidents. The diagram above, No. 1, shows relative positions at one, two and three seconds of two vehicles each approaching an intersection at 15 and 20 miles per hour. Note.—At one second both vehicles are in clear vision of each other, and neither vehicle can reasonably be stopped before colliding. : At two seconds each vehicle is 42ft from impact point and clearly visible. The accepted skidding or stopping distance on a dry, good surface road with two wheel brakes is 21ft, after application of the brakes. Allowing say half second mental reaction and the time necessary to transfer, the foot from acclerator to brake pedal, both vehicles have each travelled another 21ft, and if indifferent or-unlucky drivers, they wake up in the casulty ward with a desire to know what -happened.. Listening to their statements later court, one" wonders how many descendants Ananias really -left behind Trim, r; , =351,1;50 a - ■ - i; %

At two or three seconds before impact the off-side man has ample opportunity to stop and avoid the collision, and failure to do so is negligencie. He failed to see the other vehicle, or if so, trusted he would swerve behind (or jump over him), as a competent driver he should know the other vehicle cannot be reasonably stopped in time to avoid the accident if travelling 20 m.p.h. N[ote. —The motor regulations consider if a vehicle travelling 20 miles per hour be stopped in 50ft then the brakes are 100 per cent efficient. Again, being a competent driver he must be able to judge speeds, otherwise he is a menace on the roads, and if he continues on and is run into, obviously at the best he is guilty of an error in judgment. The usual alibi is, "I and crossed over in low gear at five miles per hour." If this were correct, an ordinary capable driver would accelerate hip vehicle, and there would be no possibility of an accident, as; the faster the other vehicle is travelling the greater relative distance it has to go, and as shown by the diagram it is visible to this slow moving driver at least two seconds, there is no reason why he should linger to be run into.

"Cntting-in" probably endangers the lives of more motorists than any other bad driving habit. The cautious "never over 30 m.p.h." driver often is as bad an offender in this way as the speedster; often also he is more dangerous. Yet for cutting-in there exists no. excuse, particularly if the road is narrow, or dangerous from rain.

The habitual "cutter-in" obviously has faith in his car's acceleration and braking yet both often are quite bad and his safety during-each cut-in is guaranteed by the better brakes and driving of th« man he .chops out of position. Frequent repetition of the act may tire the "chopped-out" driver; he may get tired of watching the safety of the cutter-in or his brakes may fail. Then follows the crash.

After all, the habit is bred' if impatience—a Very bad motoring fault. Along some motor highways traffic police now practically ignore the fairly fast driver and concentrate, rightly, on the apprehension of "cutters-in."

The/Rpyal Automobile Club of Australia calk .attention to the inconvenience caused, on busy roads, bytraffic travelling at an unreasonably slow' pace. Recently an officer of the club, while touring, was on four different occasions by cars which were dawdling along at speeds well under 15 miles an hour, causing considerable Congestion, as it was impossible to pass them because of the narrow* ness of the road and the heavy traffic in the opposite direction. Whilenot for a moment advocating the adoption of speedway ta<&ics by drivers on the main roads, the dub reminds drivers of the selfishness of hindering Other traffic in this. way,- and appeals, to those drivers who wish to proceed so slowly to use the