MAKING THE ROADS SAFER

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 150, 21 March 1939, Page 8

MAKING THE ROADS SAFER

There should be no difference of opinion on the point that much remains to be done to make road traffic less dangerous. Considerable thought and energy has already been expended in the effort to reduce the accident rate, but, as recent experience has unhappily demonstrated, drivers of motor-vehicles have still a lot to learn. The roadsafety campaign will fail of its purpose unless there is co-operation on the part of road users with those who are planning for their benefit. In a discussion at last week’s conference of the North Island Motor Union the point was made that more funds should be available for propaganda work, and it was suggested that the revenue from the petrol taxation should be drawn upon for that purpose. T-his seems reasonable. If a tax is levied for the purpose of providing good roads, expenditure on the task of making them safe should lie considered legitimate. Good roads should be safe roads. The Minister of Public Works claims that his heavy expenditure on road-improvement works is in part j'ustified by the fact that the highways have been made safer for traffic. What actually has happened is that higher speeds have been made possible, but the accident rate, which should have been lowered, remains high. It is a curious paradox that accidents should be more frequent on good roads than on inferior ones. The explanation, of course, is that people drive more slowly and carefully when the going is not so good, and take risks when better conditions allow of high speeds. As Mr. E. A. Batt remarked at the conference, instead of spending all the money on good roads, where the most accidents happened, part of it should be devoted to publicity. It was common knowledge, he said, that people who drove safely over the Paekakariki Hill and over the Rimutakas smashed themselves to death on the Hutt Road, because the principle of exercising care for self-preservation was reduced in proportion to the good qualities of the road. The problem comes back to the human factor. What seems to be required is an intensification of the efforts on the part of those entrusted with the .responsibility of educating the road users. Moie liberal use might lie made of warning devices along the highways, such as, for example, “Do not cut in” notices on roads where heavy traffic tempts speedsters to attempt to get ahead of the procession in front. But there is another side to this cutting-in. While the speeding motorist is rightly marked out for censure, the driver who holds up traffic by his too leisurely progress is not only a nuisance but a danger, for he himself is to blame for the cutting-in of others behind him. It would seem that warning devices of various kinds might be more effective in results than broadcast pamphlets, or safety flags. The first, more often than not, is cast aside and forgotten, or lost, while the other becomes so familiar a feature of the landscape to those who see it as to lose its significance. Education in road safety must be systematic and persistent. Spasmodic bursts of zeal, such as is in evidence in a “road safety week,’ soon languish, and the effects are liable to expire altogether unless followed up by continuous and energetic effort to sustain public attention.