SAFER ROADS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 307, 26 September 1929, Page 7

SAFER ROADS.

MORE TRAFFIC CONTROL. British Commission Report. 5 (From the London Spectator) The first report of the British Royal Commission on the “ Control of Traffic” (by road and water), is an admirable document. It is courageous , and lucid, and it reflects the spirit of the age. It recognises facts, and assumes that you cannot put hack the hands of the clock of mechanisation. It is neither a pro-mo-torist report nor an anti-motorist re-

port. It allows itself to L. guided by facts, and offers recommendations which ought to be invaluable. . . . They (the Commission) Worked under a solemn recognition of the terrible mounting of the figures of mortality. The number of accidents has increased in almost exact proportion to the increase of motor vehicles. In 1909, the earliest statistical year, there were 27,161 accidents. In 1928 there were 147,582 accidents, including more than 6000 deaths. Truly it has been said that the safest place in the world is an English railway train, the most dangerous a London street.

But the Commission did not allow themselves to play with the idea of a panicky and retrograde policy of cutting down speed. They appreciated the simple truth that a high speed in a broad open road may be safe, and a relatively low speed in crowded places, particularly when

children are about, dangerous. Moreover, they by no means lay all the blame on motorists. They found that some bicyclists seemed to be concerned almost more for their ancient rights than for their own safety and the convenience of others, and that walkers (also feeling all too secure in the exercise of ancient rights) were not always sensible or adaptable.

The Commission say that not one person in a thousand—they would be nearer the mark if they had said not one in a million—observes the law by limiting speed to twenty miles an hour. The universal disregarding of the law tends to bring the law into contempt. This is a serious matter in a country which has always been noticeable for its law-abiding qualities. We Englishmen are apt derisively to sympathise with Americans for the contempt into which we say Prohibition has brought their

law, but it must not be forgotten that it is almost equally common form for the American when he is twitted by the Englishman about Prohibition to say: “ What about your motor laws?” The Commission are so sensible of the unreasonableness of labelling any speed unsafe since speed and danger are purely matters of circumstance—that they boldly propose to do away with any speed limit for motor cars and motor bicycles. This proposal, however, has the right and absolutely necessary corollary, that “ dangerous driving ” (about which it is hoped that we shall hear far more in the future than of “ exceeding the speed limit ”) must be exalted into a very serious offence.

It is proposed that fines should be raised to a maximum of £SO for the first offence and £IOO for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment as an alternative in either case. Upon the second or subsequent conviction the license would be automatically suspended for not less than six months. The Commission also recommend that a driver should be guilty of an “ offence ” if he fails to observe or obey a road sign, fails to go “ dead slow ” on approaching a major road from a minor road, and so on. The penalty for such offences, it is suggested, should be a fine not exceeding £2O for the first conviction and £SO for a second or subsequent conviction. As for commercial motor vehicles it is proposed that in their case there should still be speed limits—for examples, 35 miles an hour for motor omnibuses writh pneumatic tyres, and 30 miles an hour for goods vehicles, not exceeding 2 h tons unladen weight, provided they have pneumatic tyres. We should think that observers would find it difficult to judge between 35 and 30 miles an hour. This is not unimportant, as the whole point of the new regulations is that they should be strictly observed. And' if there is to be strictness it is obvious that there must be no possibility of misunderstanding. For one thing the signs all over the country must be uniform. The Commission showed themselves quite alive to this necessity. Other recommendations are that it should be compulsory to fit headlights with a dipping or swivelling device; that all new roads should be provided with footpaths with as good a surface as that of the roads themselves (how sensible! otherwise the walkers would be found on the roads after all), and that walkers ought to he encouraged to keep to the left. This is sensible again. Our national custom has been to keep to the right on foot, but it is clear that in order to keep one’s eye on on-coming traffic one ought to be on the left. The trouble is that at present the old rule is gradually losing sanction, but no new rule has definitely replaced it.

Another useful recommendation is that an applicant for a driving license should be required to make a declaration of “ physical fitness.” There would be no useless examination in driving—useless because, as the Commission says, the drivers who “ cut in ” are not generally novices but skilful persons—but only a declaration that the applicant is not

epileptic or half blind or deaf. As regards charges of drunkenness, the Commission thing that there should be a single uniform test. The question should be not whether a man is drunk in the necessarily varying medical sense, but whether, owing to drink, he had not “ proper control ” over his vehicle.

Finally, the Commission suggest that much can be done by education and propaganda. We agree. They suggest the circulation of a “ Code of Customs.” This would deal incidentally, of course, with the abomination of “ cutting in ” and the dreadfully prevalent habit of going to the wrong side of the road to pass an obstruction, in defiance of the right-of-way which belongs to those coming in the other direction.