The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1957. Pedestrian Crossings

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28265, 1 May 1957, Page 12

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1957. Pedestrian Crossings

Some prosecutions in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday were the result of the campaign —though only incidental to it —by the traffic department of the Christchurch City Council to educate the public in the proper use of pedestrian crossings. The department has not moved too soon; a deterioration in the attitude of pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists towards pedestrian crossings in Christchurch has been noticeable for some time. When a motion about pedestrian crossings was before the City Council last year, the traffic department explained that weaknesses and loopholes in the law made it difficult to enforce the law about pedestrian crossings. The law’s application to motorists was reasonably clear; but there was Jittle to define the proper conduct and rights of pedestrians on crossings, and there was no provision compelling an offending pedestrian to give his name to a traffic officer. Nor did the regulations specifically bind cyclists to yield the right of way. It is difficult, of course, *o lay down absolute rules of conduct where so much depends upon individual judgment; but the traffic officers had made a strong case for tightening the regulations, and for making them binding on all road-users. The new traffic regulations which came into force on March 1 removed most of the anomalies and weaknesses to which the traffic officers had pointed. Also, the new regulations put pedestrians under stronger obligations to use pedestrian crossings and to observe signals, either manual or by traffic lights. Fortified by the more explicit directions and authority, the traffic department of the Christchurch City Council has now set about the task of policing the city’s pedestrian crossings. It is a task that will take time and patience and the cooperation of all road-users. The

department must persist with its efforts because, with increasing densities of traffic and population, the need for pedestrian crossings to fulfil their designed functions becomes more pressing. Motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians all have responsibilities to the law and to each other. They can be helped by traffic officers to understand their duties and responsibilities, and when flagrant breaches demand harsher lessons, traffic officers can invoke the punitive powers of the law. But the effective use of pedestrian crossings demands, above all else, understanding and tolerance of the “ other fellow’s ” position. This, indeed, is the criterion of good behaviour by road users everywhere. At pedestrian crossings it means that drivers will give way, not reluctantly, but willingly and generously. Only when pedestrians have been convinced, by the scrupulous observance of the law by motorists—and not merely some motorists but all—that they are as safe when using these crossings as the law intends, will pedestrians gain that confidence Which is essential to the quick and orderly passage of walkers across the roads. At present there is mutual distrust where there should be mutual confidence. The motorist blames the walker for “ dithering ” and then takes the right-of-way which the latter is too timid to claim. The walker insists that he will not risk his life in an unequal contest for a right-of-way which some motorists will dispute if they think they can “ get away with it ” and which others will yield only after a fast and intimidating approach and a hard application of the brakes. Perhaps when this mutual trust is established the pedestrian who deliberately “ baits ” the motorist on a marked crossing will disappear. He is now almost as great a nuisance as the frightened waverer.