The White Ribbon. "For God, and Home, and Humanity" WELLINGTON, DECEMBER 1, 1947. “ONE FOR THE ROAD”

White Ribbon, Volume 19, Issue 11, 1 December 1947, Page 4

The White Ribbon. " For God, and Home, and Humanity" WELLINGTON, DECEMBER 1, 1947. “ONE FOR THE ROAD”

In days long agone, when the traveller started on his journey astride his trusty steed, it was a custom for his host, or his lady love, to hand to him as a last token of well-wishing, a "stirrup-cup” of ale. It was not a very good custom, even then, hut at least there was some safeguard for the victim of the mistaken kindness in the fact that the said steed could be relied upon to have his brain unimpaired, and his reactions natural and uninjured, so that if the “cup” had done its worst with the rider, at any rate the horse would probably land him at his destination safely.

Today, we have a survival of this custom in the "Poor hospitality of ‘One for the Road’” as it is termed in the current issue of the Auckland Automobile Association’s “Bulletin.” The most timely warning is given in the Editorial, from which we quote the following: A current radio safety-first broadcast has as its theme the driver who has been at a party with his wife and is pressed to have "just one more for the road.” The wife advises nim not to, but her advice is countered by the jovial "friend’s" mistaken sense of hospitality and desire to prove that he and bis companion "are men who can carry their liquor.” Whether it will be admitted or not, it is a tact that

there are not many men who can resist such an appeal to their "manhood." The drink is taken, and there is an accident in which the wife is killed.

Who is the chief offender in these circumstances? The driver, of course, should have had sufficient moral courage to refuse the drink. But the show-off friend, anxious to give a display before the women-folk of the warmth of his hospitality and ability to drink, must take a large share of the blame. Responsibility for a fatal accident, even if indirect, cannot be a pleasant thing to have on the conscience, but it is a risk accepted daily. It is a risk taken in clubs and bars and homes without the slightest thought. Rather than hospitality, it is an example of selfishness, of a selfish disregard for the welfare of the driver and of other users of the road.

There is also the fact that such men arc not drunkards in the customary sense. The persistent drunkard is comparatively easily kept off the road. The danger comes from the occasional drinker. The remedy lies in co-opera-tion between motorists and* their friends. The hall-mark of a man is not his ability to drink, but his capacity to say "No" and mean it. A man, in the real sense, is also ready to set an example. It is easy to say "No thanks, I am driving the car,” hut the refusal loses its effect if it is only a mild protest as a preliminary to "one for the road.” On the other hand, note is taken when the refusal, and the reason for it, is persisted in. Some people are receptive only to fears of pains and penalties. They are provided for under the- laws concerning drunkenness while in charge of a car. Future road-safety campaigns, so far as these people are concerned, have need only to remind them of the penalties. More attention could be focussed on the casual drinker who may be made accident-prone through a faulty sense of values concerning hospitality and manhood. It is a dreadful commentary on this false friendliness that at Christmas time, the risk of rccident is so much increased by it that specially emphatic warnings are given over the air, inspired by such tragic memories of other holiday periods. It may well be a-ked whether the necessary emphasis is placed on the fallacy of the "friendly" glas?, in these broadcast warnings. Drivers should pray to bo delivered from their "friends."