OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 September 1939, Page 8

OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

PERILS OF ROAD SPEED

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In the days of our great grandfathers, grandfathers, and fathers and even' in our own day —if a journey were contemplated “shanks’s pony, the bullock dray, or the horse and buggy were brought into use. Though the pace was only 3 oi’ 4 miles an hour, we always got where we wanted to, except, perhaps, when a flooded river .stopped us. Then came the era of the motor -car. The first of these did 20 to 30 miles per hour and at this pacethey generally got safely to their destination. Somewhere about 1932-33 the speed limit was lifted; drivers were supposed to use common sense and the speed round corners in boroughs was limited to 10 miles an hour, while outside of the borough a reasonable speed had to be observed. Then came what I call “the murder law” when there was no limit to speed and magistrates ruled that 70 or 80 miles an hour was not too fast in certain cases. No one is safe with mad-brained fools on the road —I beg your pardon, Mr Editor, for using unparliamentary language. I suppose I should have said “motor hogs.” Now, Sir, in the country we call pigs, hogs or swine. I suppose pigs are the most stubborn animals —I have never seen a pig that would lead —so motor hog is the correct name for a selfish pig-headed driver. No one is safe on the road when a motor-hog is tearing along at the rate of 50 to 70 miles an hour; he does not know when he will have a blow-out. We are here one minute and may be in eternity the next. It is not right that motor hogs should be allowed to make the roads so dangerous even if the “murder law” of the land allows them to tear along at an excessive speed. There is no doubt that if there was a reasonable speed limit the number of accidents would be considerably 1 reduced. I wonder if it would be possible to gear cars so that they could not be driven at a greater speed than say 30 to 35 miles an hour. If it were possible to do so I am sure the number of accidents would be reduced by half. One thing is certain and that is we -would- nearly always get where we wanted to, whereas now, when I leave home, I wonder if I will return safe and sound.

What is gained by fast driving? Nothing! What a saving in lives, pain and 'hospital expenses (which are continually soaring) invalid pensions, etc., would be brought about if compulsory moderate driving on our roads were in operation. Fast driving is .ruining our roads. Accidents in loose gravel are due to reckless, furious driving, as well as the. hitting of bridges, telephone poles and going over a bank at the bend of a .road. I ‘have no pity for the motor-hogs but I do pity his innocent victims who should be protected from the consequences of'his folly. I believe that there are more people with weak hearts and shattered nerves than ever before as the result of the motorhog.

It is also a very unfair attitude that the motor-hog takes up at a crossing —he considers nobody has any right except himself, and the other motorist has to give way to him or risk a smash up. There is altogether too much selfishness shown on the roads by the motor -hogs, who, however, often suffer as the result of their recklessness.. Mr Semple has stated that the percentage of road accidents has increased since he first became Minister because there are more cars on the road. That may be true, but if heavier penalties were inflicted on motor hogs there would be fewer accidents today. When Mr Semple brought in the new motor laws did he appeal to .the automobile associations for an opinion? I do not think so. Reduced pace is the thing to make our roads safer. '

Most drivers iin town are driving slow now, but I suppose we will always have our motor-hogs. Our motor insurance rates have gone up —due' to the motor-hog, the innocent paying for the guilty. The drunken motorist is a very great menace on the road and I wonder when something effectual will be brought into operation to keep him from endangering life on the roads. The law should be tightened up. In the case of a person charged with drunkenness while in charge of a car I do not know if it is really necessary to have a doctor’s certificate. It should not be. I should say that if liquor is smelt on the accused person by two people, a police officer or a traffic inspector, or one officer and a private person, that should be sufficient. I do not think any law will stop some persons from taking liquor. Alcohol has a far greater grip on many people than tea or tobacco. There is very little food value in draught beer. It contains a quarter pf one per cent of available proteins, that is matter essential to body building, with 4A- per cent of alcohol and 4| per cent of sugary matters (carbo hydrates). Now, Sir, as far as I know, trains blow their whistles at about 7 or 8 chains from a crossing. That was all right in the days of the horse when the vehicle would be about 3 chains away. Now with a car and a train perhaps 10 to 11 chains from each other there would be no chance of the motorist -hearing the whistle. My opinion is that the whistle should be blown not more than 3 chains from a crossing with 2 or 3 “pops” as .it goes along, the train also being slowed down slightly. The engine-driver-would then have his hand on the stopping handle, and a second or two would be saved if danger appeared. With a car about 2 or 3 ■chains away, the occupant would thear the whistle and have time to stop—even a motor-hog. The compulsory stop notices at some crossings are wrong. If there was a notice put up limiting the pace to, say, 12 miles and a -fine for offenders of £s' for first offence and £lO for a second offence and the licence taken away for, say, 6 months, I am sure there would be very ifew railway crossing accidents. —I am, etc., ONE WHO VALUES HIS LIFE. -Masterton, August 29.