Amour Propre
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NO last-minute solution has been found to the quarrel about the national safe-driving competition. The bus and coach operators founded their dissident organization some time ago, and a belated attempt by the hauliers to heal the breach has met with the failure that its promoters no doubt expected. There is now a choice of two competitions, one sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, with the condition disqualifying a driver who is convicted of a speed-limit offence; and the other by the Road Operators' Safety Council, with conditions similar to those laid down by Rospa until the end of 1954.
There is no reason to suppose that the schism will necessarily be against the interests of road safety. Competition can be a good thing even in the sphere of competitions. The dispute has perhaps aroused more interest in the subject than during the 30 years or so in which Rospa had a monopoly. There must be many operators, both of passenger and goods vehicles, who have not previously entered their drivers for the competition, but are now solemnly weighing the pros and cons of the alternatives offered for the first time.
Publicity can scarcely be anything except beneficial for the. cause to which both competitions are devoted. It is not, therefore, easy to understand why in a letter to their competition members early this year Rospa should state, with mingled pride and modesty, that they had " deliberately refrained from making any general Press release, not only because such would not he in the best interests of road safety as a whole, but because" the Society have "no desire to widen the breach now created."
More Lenient
The letter goes on to deplore the setting up of a "breakaway organization with different and more lenient conditions." Rospa are prepared "to leave the general public to judge which competition is more in the interests of greater road safety for all sections of road user."
Only by useful publicity will the general public be in a position to judge. The time will soon come, if it is not here already, for Rospa to accept the new situation with as ,good a grace as possible. The breach is now as wide as it is ever. likely to become. Both sides should now aim, not so much to capture proselytes from each other as to attract new competitors. For such a purpose, the more publicity the better. At the same time, there would be no harm in a determined attempt to reach agreement on any points where disagreement is tending to harm the general cause.
One can sympathize with the fears of Rospa. They see the danger of a kind of Greshatres Law, by which what they regard as the bad competition will drive out the good. Unless they can establish the superiority of their own product, few operators or drivers will he willint to pay the slightly higher price. Rospa have, therefore, issued a warning that the drivers of operators changing to the Rosen brand will not be able to continue building up a record of safe driving, but will have to begin again should they in due course return to a concern that has remained loyal to Rospa.
This warning was appropriate when there was some hope of reaching agreement. It merely seems vindictive now that Rosco have obviously come to stay. Drivers are justifiably proud of the certificates and medals they have won for continuous periods of safe driving. To say the least, they can hardly be encouraged by the thought that the record they have built up can be shattered through circumstances beyond their control. This must not be allowed to happen, whatever blow may be caused to the amour propre of one or other of the rival organizations.
In this particular connection, it is more important than ever to remember that people are more significant than the institutions that govern their activities. The accent is on safe driving rather than on competition. The awards of either society count for little apart from the effect they cause in the minds of drivers. There is evidently a danger that the effect will be diminished unless the awards are interchangeable, and the two societies should seek an early opportunity of devising a formula that makes this possible.
Not Trivial
The extent of the division between the two sides should not be exaggerated. Rospa have rightly stressed that no speeding offence should be regarded as trivial. "The interests of greater safety on the roads," they point out, "are not served by the influence which a speeding driver exerts on other road users, The speeding driver himself frequently escapes accident, but his action has, in fact, engendered a feeling of frustration and/or spirit of competition amongst the other road users he meets or overtakes, which only too often has involved the other road user in an accident."
Rosen would probably agree with this statement in principle. They do not suggest that speeding offences should be ignored when a decision is being reached on whether a driver should qualify for an award, They wish rather to continue on the line previously taken by Rospa, whereby, in a case of conviction for speeding, the employer should consider carefully whether the offence was prejudicial to public safety. This procedure should not be taken as condoning the offence. The argument is that the offence need not involve dangerous driving, and is to that extent irrelevant in connection with a competition that has safe driving as its sole purpose.
An obvious example to support the argument is provided by the heavy goods vehicle, subject to a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. that is more honoured in the breach than the observance. The Ministry of Transport's own road safety committee have given an assurance that an increase to 30 m.p.h. would not add to the dangers of the road, so that the driver who breaks the law while the limit remains at 20 m.p.h.-can reasonably maintain that he is not infringing the spirit of any safe-driving competition.
The promoters of neither competition wish to make use of it as a means for bringing the law into contempt. Their aims are the same, and their conditions nearly the same, except in one particular in which apparently they find it impossible to reach agreement. They must be careful that their division of opinion at no time hinders the cause to which they are both devoted.