Road Accidents—Causes and Prevention
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A PANEL of experts was invited by .1--1 the Institute of Road Transport Engineers to answer questions oh road ia fe t y and discuss the problems involved at a meeting in London on January 20. The four members were Lt.-Col. A. It...Forbes, secretary of the national road safety committee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; Mr, A. A. M. Durrant, chief mechanical engineer (road services), London Transport Executive; Dr. R. J. Smeed, deputy director, traffic and safety division, Road Research Laboratory:" and Mr. C. E. Boast, honorary consulting engineer for Croydon. Mr. J. W. C. Hedges, of Pickfords Heavy Haulage Division, chairman of the Institute, presided.
Users Mostly to Blame The proceedings were opened by a short presidential address on "Road Accidents—Their Causes and Prevention," by Mr. G. Mackenzie Junner. He pointed out that 300 specialists in road traffic problems from over 20 countries had stressed that whilst traffic authorities and road engineers might do their best, 80 percent. of accidents were the fault Of road users.
This was borne out by the fact that, , as a result of much propaganda during recent years, accidents had not risen to the same degree as had the number of drivers. Even now,-however, economic losses caused by road accidents were eight times more than those from fire and 40 times those resulting from crime. Since the war there had been over lm. road accidents involving death or injury, estimated to cost the country £150m. a year.
He thought the chief causes of accidents were impatience, carelessness, frustration and a prevalence of "no give or take." The most serious occUrred at cross-roads, resulting from foolhardiness, jumping traffic lights, indecision and cutting across from left
to right in front of approaching vehicles.
The panel was asked whether there should he compulsory inspection for condition andif so, it what intervals, Mr. Durrant. was not enthusiastic. He thought it might diffuse personal responsibility and questioned whether there was any real case for it.
Dr. Smeed thought that, based on police assessment, mechanical failures were infrequent, but no doubt many accidents were caused by defective vehicles. For example, head lamps were nearly-all 3° out of focus, causing much dazzle, whilst 10 per cent, of vehicles could not stop from 30 m.p.h. in less than 100 ft. Tests in the United States had appreciably reduced accidents.
Col. Forbes thought such inspection was undesirable, except for private cars and light delivery vans.
Replying to a question oh stabilizing road lighting, Mr. Boast said that the main danger was in running from a well-lit main road to a less important and-badly lit one on bus routes. Mr. Durrant thought the lack of equal light
ing on main roads was a serious reflection on the authorities responsible.
As regards types of vehicle that could be driven, C017 Forbes believed that narrowing the classification would help safety, but Dr. Smeed thought the importance might be exaggerated, as no driving tests were made at the limit of vehicle performance. Mr: Durrant did not approve of a 17-year-old; taught on a small car, taking over a much more powerful one.
On parking, Mr. Durrant said that unlit cars parked in a main thoroughfare were a great danger in fog, and particularly so on bus routes. No such parki,ng should be permitted there.
On the question of giving way to traffic approaching from the right, the general opinion was that this was not satisfactory. Col Forbes said it might work if drivers could be compelled to follow the principle, but this was difficult. Mr. Durrant thought that it was unwise to give a person right of
way. .
Asked what drivers were accident prone, Dr. Smeed gave those in the age group 20-30. There was a reduction between 30 and 50, and a rise after this age..
Standardization of pedals in vehicles was vital, Mr. Durrant said, but the position of the gear lever did not seem to matter,