The Rights of the Pedestrian
THE citizen who walks in the city streets or the country roads is becoming more and more appre- hensive. He has a traditional belief in his rights as a pedestrian, but, whatever his legal position may be, he finds that in practice he cannot assert his rights without incurring very considerable dangers to life and limb. Even if he is Argus-eyed and can sprint like Mercury, he may not succeed in crossing a busy London street in safety, and the most observant and cautious of walkers on a country highway may be run down from behind by a careless motor driver. The tale of road accidents reported daily in the Press grows longer and longer, and, though drivers and passengers still supply most of the casualties, the number of pedestrians who are killed or injured is very considerable .and ever increasing. As the vast majority of people walk, and only the minority ride, the pedestrian's natural concern at the outlook must be taken very seriously.
Major Granville Edge, in a paper .read before the Royal Statistical Society last year, went so far as to compare motor accidents as a cause of mortality with cancer, and to show that if,. between 1904 and 1923, cancer had shown an increase.of 25 per cent. in destructive- ness; deaths caused by motor .vehicles had increased by 1,400 per cent. It was not, perhaps, a fair comparison, but it served to emphasize the author's contention that something should be done to check the growth of fatal accidents caused by motors, which in 1923 numbered 2,414, and will this year probably exceed 4,000. The loss of child-life is particularly distressing. In 1923, 339 young children were killed by motors, as against 16 killed by horse-drawn vehicles ; and, as the proportion of child victims to the total of fatalities was one in six or seven for a dozen years up to that date, we may infer that the mortality among children in 1927 will be 600 or more. Everyone who has driven a car knows how venturesome and unheeding the young children are, how they will suddenly dash out of a gate and run across a village street when one is least expecting them. The average motorist is much more afraid of hurting a child than the child is of being run over. Nevertheless the fatalities to children and to adults are already far too numerous and are increasing fast, and something must be done to check them.
The natural tendency of the average man who knows nothing of motoring is to say that excessive speed is the real cause of most accidents and that the speed limit should be enforced. Motorists, on the other hand, are almost unanimous in holding that the danger lies not in mere speed,- but rather in careless driving and, very often, in imperfect or inadequate brakes. The motor cycle,, which is usually driven at a high speed, and more often over thirty-five miles an hour than below it, is commonly blamed as the chief offender. But Dr. Stevenson, of the Registrar-General's office, in the discussion on Major Granville Edge's paper, showed by official figures that the motor cycle, because it can swerve and dodge a pedestrian, is really less dangerous than a car—to others beside the driver and his pillion rider. The motor cycle, according to his statistics, accounted for a tenth of the total fatalities, whereas the motor car caused slightly over a third. Moreover, the motor cycle killed few children and old people, whereas most of the victims of the car were the very young and the old. Again, Dr. Stevenson emphasized the importance of powerful brakes as a factor of safety. He nointed . out that the tramcar was four times as safe as the motor omnibus, as judged by the returns of fatal accidents, and he explained the fact by the tram's enormous reserve of braking power. We may conclude, then, that the widespread adoption of four-wheel brakes, which are now standard in modern cars, should help to diminish the number of accidents, whereas any attempt to reduce the average speed of motor vehicles, even if it were successful, would not solve the problem. Whether anything could be done, by regular inspection, to ensure that every motor vehicle, and especially the heavy commercial lorry, should have efficient brakes capable of bringing it to a standstill in a few yards is a debatable question. The onus is at present on the driver and owner of the vehicle, and it may not be politic to weaken their direct respon- sibility for any accident due to the imperfection of the braking or steering gear. The pressure of public opinion may suffice to make motor owners generally sensible of the extreme importance of having sound brakes.
But even if every motor vehicle were in perfect con- dition and could be stopped very quickly, if need be, there would still be many accidents. In busy cities there will always be venturesome folk who think their time too valuable to waste in waiting for a clear space before they cross the street. It is suggested, and in some places actually required, that pedestrians should only cross the streets at specified points. We can hardly foresee the day when our pavements will have chains along the kerb, as in Munich, to separate the foot passengers from the traffic and prevent the bold pedestrian from suddenly cutting across to the opposite side. But at the busiest places, as at Charing Cross or Piccadilly Circus, pedestrians are acquiring the habit of crossing only where the policeman stands to control the traffic, and this habit may develop. If people by tacit agreement were to cross the busier streets only at particular places, the task of drivers would be greatly eased.
But the problem of the country roads remains, and that is far more difficult. In the open country, even on highways, there are very long stretches without footpaths, so that pedestrians must walk in the road. Any motorist knows how often, on rounding a blind corner, he will find one or two persons walking in front of his car, and, more often than not, walking near the middle of the road. Many accidents happen in this way, and it is not always fair to blame the driver for what occurs, though no sane motorist will approach a blind corner at top speed even if he is absolutely sure of his brakes. The obvious remedy is to provide foot- paths for all important roads, but that remedy, we must admit, must involve great expenditure for years to come. The provision of kerbs for the new and the reconstructed highways—mainly to prevent the road foundation from spreading and weakening—is a step in the right direction, from the pedestrian's point of view. But many good and delightful roads, like the Farnham-Gosport highway, are much too narrow for miles on end to allow of kerbs or footpaths, and to widen them would be a most costly business, besides spoiling their rural charm. However, if we have to choose between the aesthetic and the practical, between pre- serving the amenities of the countryside and saving u human life, our choice cannot be doubtful. We ea banish the motor car and motor lorry, and we must therefore ensure reasonable security to the pedestrian, whatever the cost.
Previous page
