ROAD CONTROL

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 929, 24 March 1930, Page 13

ROAD CONTROL

INTERESTING REPORT BYENGLISH COMMISSION GAOL FOR “ROAD HOGS” Interesting information for both road traffic control authorities and the users of roads is contained in an interim report by a Royal Commission on Transport, set up in England in 1928. The commission was under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur GriffithBoscawen. Its report is now before the House of Commons for consideration, along with a draft of the Road Traffic Bill. Tho commission was to report on transit coastwise and by ferry as well, but has so far published only its views regarding road traffic. It reports, regarding the practice of pedestrians using tho vehicular road, reads as follows: ‘‘lt should be definitely laid down that road authorities should be bound to ]4rovide footpaths on all new and reconstructed roads, and on all old roads, where none now exists, and the width of the roads renders this possible; and that footpaths should be maintained in as good condition as the roadways.” This is a piece of advice that might be considered in New Zealand. New Zealand’s practice regarding third party risk, making the owner of a vehicle responsible for insuring against risk of damage to life and limb of a third party concerned in any accident, is commended.

In England any person who can find ss, and pay it to tho registrar (and is over 14 years of age in the case of prospective motor-cyclists), may get a driver’s licence, even if totally blind. The commission is ready to Tirge that the physical qualifications of the applicants should be taken into consideration, and the age restriction for motorcyclists raised to 16 years. It does not, however, deem it desirable to insist on candidates possessing any knowledge of the art of driving. DEFINING DRUNKENNESS On the much-argued question of what to do with the person alleged to be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, the Commission proposes that the question of defining what drunk means should be got around by defining the offence as “Any person found when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle to be so under the influence of drink or drugs as to be incapable of having proper control of such vehicle . . .” The Commission does not think that a penalty of a fine not exceeding £SO or imprisonment, l'or four months, or both, with suspension of the licence for 12 months, is too severe for this class of offence. In fact, it urges that on a second offence the licence should be automatically cancelled and advises gaol for “road hogs.” All the witnesses complained that the insufficient penalties imposed by magistrates were not a deterrent in cases of driving in a dangerous manner.

The Commission, also, is in favour of a penalty for a minor offence, “failing to observe a road sign,” fine £2O, rising to £so.for second offences, or to a term ot imprisonment not exceeding three months. If this plan is adopted it will be requisite for all road signs throughout England to be standardised, and this cost it is suggested should be paid out of the taxes on motoring. The annual maintenance is to be charged on local bodies. The question of speed limits was given great consideration. It is urged that there should not be any speed limit for motor-cars, used for private purposes, and carrying not more than eight persons. For motor-buses the speeds are graded up to 35 miles an hour where pneumatic tyres are used and 16 miles where solid tyres are in use. Vehicles carrying goads are limited to 20 miles an hour. “OFF-SIDE” RULE

The “off-side” rule, for preventing collisions at cross roads, finds no favour in the eyes of the Commission, which adopted the idea of grading all roads according to their degree of importance. The traffic on the more important road should have precedence over that on the less important. Automatic signalling at intersection points is commended where the volume of traffic warrants the expense. The installation cost is about £l5O and the runiiing cost 10s to 15s a Aveek. The use of dipping or swivelling headlights should be made compulsory in order to avoid tho trouble arising from headlight glare. An analysis of the street accidents provides some startling figures. The number of street accidents has increased from 62,621 in 1921 to 147,582 in 1928- —the last complete year for which figures are available. The increase is almost in exact proportion to the increase in the number of motorvehicles in use. Taking the figures for fatal accidents in 192 S they read: For mechanical vehicles other than trams, 5,223; trams and trackless trolleys, 111; pedal cycles, 426; horsedrawn vehicles, 218. The non-fatal accidents for the same classes were: 106,753, 5,907, 24,439, and 4,505". These figures are for accidents and do not take into account the number of- deaths from any accident. So far as could be ascertained, 6,127 persons were killed and 164,457 injured, of which 11 fatal and 351 injured are /set down as due to horse-drawn traffic.

SIX THOUSAND DEATHS A YEAR The commission remarks: “This is a very serious matter. The benefits conferred on the country by mechanical transport are indisputable, but 6,000 deaths in one year, with the prospect of a greater death-roll in each succeeding year until we reach what has been called ‘saturation point’ as regards the number of motor-vehicles, is a very heavy price to pay.” The causes of accidents are set out: Attributable to the motor driver, 39.1 per cent. (15.1 per cent, due to excessive speed) : to other than, motor driver; (cyclists, pedestrians, etc.); adults, 19.1 per cent.: children, 16.3 per cent.; cyclists, 7.1 per cent.; animals, 0.7 per cent.; due to defects in motorvehicles, 7 per cent.; road conditions, 6.2 per cent.; weather conditions, 4.2 per cent.

The novice driver emerges well from the inquiry. He causes only 1.4 per cent, of the accidents, mostly, as the commission remarks, “because lie is too frightened to take serious risks, though he is often tin obstruction to traffic.”