MOTOR ACCIDENTS.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18896, 11 January 1927, Page 12

MOTOR ACCIDENTS.

A SCARE CAMPAIGN. Irrespective of the circumstances intending accidents, motorists in Ureal Britain are having every luuility listed against them in a campaign ior safety til st. Traffic accident* are being recorded and sensational figures arc ciUst m an indiscriminate uemand lor Uio suppression ot reckless driving. vMiile tho punishment ot tlie truly negligent uriver lias the approval ol every reasonable motorist, an outcry has been raised which holus the motorist up as a sort, of mad dog. The automobile organisations of oreat Britain have iilwavs discouraged speeding, but the complaints have been so universally aimed at motorists, to the exclusion ot nnv fault on the part of the pedestrian, that there has been a demand ironi motorists for a fairer consideration ot tho circumstances of each accident before condemning the car-driver, iiven if 50 per cent, of accidents are tlie fault of the motorist, it is not sufficient justification for the campaign on the assumption that the pedestrian is blameless. .Non-motorists are too ready with requests for the treatment ot everv driver as a potential criminal. Some- English magistrates and coroners are taking it upon themselves to deliver homilies to motorists upon tho slightest provocation. A traffic death usually evokes some sweeping comment from a non-motoring magistrate on the menace of motor vehicles. Seldom does ono hear of a suggestion that the pedestrian should be subjected to regulation, although ono or two magistrates have been courageous enough to draw attention to the proportion of accidents in which the jay-walker was solely responsible. This practice of delivering sweeping indictments of motorists whenever an accident occurs is outside the duty of the, magistrate or coroner. It is done repeatedly by men who hold authoritative positions, and whose views are generally encouraged. A suggestion for the elimination of «• dangerous traffic point or for tho expeditious control of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, is welcome from any magistrate. There is, however, no excuse for the unreasoning demands for wholesale prosecution. Men who profess traffic knowledge should bo ready with help-' fill advice. Instead of considering methods of reducing tho possibility ot accident, many seem to content thornselves with urging heavier penalties for those who offend. It is tho old mistake of attempting to reduce an evil by considering a cure, or deterrent rather than a means of prevention. A very small proportion of accidents can be said to "be due to criminal ncg]igence. The great majority may ho due to an error of judgment, but it is useless to represent that the motorist is;a criminal because he did not do the best thing under the circumstances. At an inquest on the Rev. Lewis Henry Pearson, vicar of Rothley, Leicestershire, who was lulled when his motor-cycle collided with a motor coach, the Coroner said that there were hundreds of drivers who never ought to lie on tho road at all. They had now a new type of criminal, the motor criminal, ' who was more dangerous than the thief. The police should look after dangerous driving rather than trouble ahout cases where motor-cars were left in the streets. A verdict of accidental death was returned. The unfairness of comment of this nature when the evidence merely justified the finding that the occurrence was an accident, is very obvious.