An article in the Daily Mail (4th September 1896) posed the question "Motor Cars – Are they to be a Failure? The article covered the Locomotives on Highways Act that came into force in November the same year.
This Act was welcomed for removing the necessity for having a man with a red flag walk in front of automobiles, thus enabling the new automobiles to drive faster.
It also required the driver to carry a bell or some other means of audible warning, and carrying a lamp one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise.
The same time limits for lighting are in force today. The article concluded that unless the automobile could be improved dramatically it would not surpass the more traditional forms of transport.
The previous month the Daily Mail had carried another article entitled the "Day of the Motor Car" (27th August 1896). This article welcomed the advent of the automobile for the many benefits it would bring with it. Roads would not need repairing so often, the noise would be less, the streets cleaner and healthier and the speed of travel greater.
It is also noticeable that the article pointed out the greater safety benefits of the car over horse drawn carriages, being able to stop in a very short distance in case of emergency. It is salutary to note that in the days of horse drawn vehicles the streets were often impassable because of the mess that was left.
An American visiting London in the 1890s wrote about the mess.
"In winter the streets are ankle deep in a mixture of urine and manure. Crossing without getting yourself covered in the filth is an art in itself. For a few coppers you can hire a 'crossing sweeper' who will walk in front of you sweeping the mess out of the way. Unfortunately, if you are crossing the same time as another, the filth raised by the other's crossing sweeper spatters you from head to foot.
"In summer, the dung dries hard and is crushed to a fine powder by the wheels of passing carts. This rises like a fog and finds it's way into every crevice of your clothing and person. Inhaled, it causes respiratory problems and the streets are soon full of people coughing and spluttering.
"The authorities try and clean the streets daily, but with the amount of horse traffic it is akin to cleaning the Augean Stables."
In the early years of the 20th century the automobile was seen as a benefactor, something that would increase trade and travel throughout the country.
Public opinion was not slow to see the advantages of this new form of transport and often made representations to the Government to improve the lot of the motorcar.
In an article in the Daily Mail (6th March 1902) the General Council of the Automobile Club urged the Government to raise the speed limit from the then maximum of 12 mph.
It is interesting to note the comment "the existing law, which provides that even on a clear straight road, devoid of traffic, a light motor vehicle cannot be driven at a greater speed of 12mph "cannot command respect or observance".
It also pointed out that, whereas trams often exceeded 18 mph cars were still being forced to accept the lower limit. It would seem that the setting of artificially low speed limits is not a new thing!
The article also pointed out that the stopping distances in case of emergency were considerably shorter in the case of an automobile.
The Automobile Club had carried out a series of tests which showed that a motor car travelling at 20mph stopped in less distance than a horse drawn vehicle travelling at 10mph.
The government obviously listened because in 1911 the Board of Trade approved an uprating of the roads in London to take into account the new form of transport – the car!
With the advent of faster cars came the speeding motorist. Bernard Geike Cobb of Holland Park Avenue, was fined £20 (a huge sum in those days) with 7s and 6d costs for driving at 25mph on a very dark night in Esher.
The magistrate regretted that he couldn't send him to prison. He referred to the errant motorist as a 'road hog'. I wonder if this is the first recorded instance of this term being used.
As the century progressed it was obvious that the casualty rate would also increase. It is interesting to note though, that even at this stage the police were taking a sensible approach to motoring offences.
The Metropolitan Police announced that they "were going to devote less attention to technical infringements of the 20mph speed limit and more to cases where there is reckless and negligent driving involving direct danger to the public." (Daily Mail 10th September 1920)
This attitude persevered through the years until changed by "the grab the money and to hell with safety" attitude so recently espoused.
It was also recognised that as vehicles became safer, raising the speed limit to take account of this was perfectly acceptable.
Thus, the 20 mph limit was raised to 30mph. The Road Traffic Act of 1930 imposed a speed restriction for heavy goods vehicles of 20mph but this was raised to 30mph in 1955.
Since then, no increase in speed limits has been allowed for normal motor vehicles, after this date the emphasis was on lowering the speed limit.
It was also recognised that the cure for congestion was to keep the traffic flowing, a policy that has been completely reversed in recent years with more and more obstacles being placed in the motorist's way.
But, as we shall see this was all part of the general strategy to grab the cash and run.
Of course, with the increase in traffic it was obvious that the accident rate would increase as well.
However, instead of trying to find one single fictitious cause for the accidents the reasons for them were carefully analysed, and solutions sought.
For example, there were many complaints about motorists driving two or even three abreast. (Daily Mail 19 May 1922)
At that time the 'white line' had not been introduced and motorists were free to drive on any side of the road they wished.
By 1925 this had been introduced and was an effective measure in making the roads safer. It is salutary to note that even in these early days a sensible approach to road safety was taken by those in the know.
Lt Col Charles Jarrott, a pioneer motorist and founder of the Automobile Association spoke about the increase in road accidents caused by letting thousands of new and inexperienced drivers on to the roads (the driving test was far in the future).
"Ignorance when handling a car is as great a danger as carelessness, but fast driving is not necessarily reckless driving.
"Road and Traffic conditions have to be taken into consideration. Let us have a fair and intelligent interpretation and administration of the law of driving to the common danger which should apply to all types of road vehicles including the cyclist who deliberately courts death by wandering all over the road."
Wise words which are just as true today as they were 86 years ago. As the years progressed more and more safety features were introduced to try and reduce the accident rate.
Reflective signs that could be read in the dark were introduced in 1925 and in 1930 a milestone was reached with the introduction of the Highway Code.
The Highway Code is a safety manual that gives guidance to road users on how to use the road correctly.
It is not law but many of its aspects are covered by various Road Traffic Acts.
It started from the premise that a person's safety was their own responsibility and it was up to everyone to use the roads correctly.
This was a major advance in road safety and the first copies went on sale in 1931, priced one penny.
One of the major themes of the Highway Code was that pedestrians should take more care in using the roads. They were urged to: "get to know the signals used by drivers and give signals themselves when intending to cross a road."
This is especially interesting when you realise that when pedestrians use a light controlled crossing today (all too infrequently) that is exactly what they are doing.
The 1930 Road Traffic act also addressed such problems as compulsory third party insurance In 1933 a new type of vehicle activated traffic light system, known as EVA, was launched all over Britain.
Not only was there a great saving in police numbers being used for point duty, but also one of the primary aims was to "keep the traffic moving with the minimum of delay"
Time and time again we see sensible policies being enacted by the transport authorities. A recognition that road safety is a matter for all road users, not just motorists, that the roads are there for wheeled traffic which must be kept moving, and that when possible speed limits are raised to take account of safer vehicles.
By 1934 it was estimated that there had been 1,613,753 new cars built in the previous decade and that the total number of vehicles on Britain's roads would be about 1.7 million.
Checking the records of this period, it is interesting to note how many five shilling fines were handed out to pedestrians who were guilty of 'not exercising due care when entering the carriageway'.
Today, Britain is one of the few countries in the developed world which does not have 'jaywalking' laws.
It is interesting to note that in 1934, when there were less than 2 million cars on the road (compared to the 27 million on today's roads) and the average top speed on cars was about 38mph, the death rate reached a staggering 7,343 fatalities.
This was only exceeded in 1939 when there were 8,270 fatalities, a lot of which were blamed on the blackout regulations.
When faced with the 'Speed Kills' lobby I find that they are completely unable to explain why in a period of much slower and fewer cars, the fatalities are so astronomically high.
According to the accepted mantra, slower cars + fewer cars = much less accidents. Unfortunately, the truth is not always welcomed by the anti-car brigade. (remember what Goebbels said about truth, "It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.")
After the war, the standard of road safety slipped dramatically, due in some part to many drivers who had been in action abroad being used to driving on the right hand side of the road (my father being one of them!).
It was during this period that the Labour government of the day decided that what was needed was more laws and regulation.
They decided to hold an inquiry that would back their plans. Unfortunately, because the commission was neutral its findings were somewhat different.
The following quote is from the Report of the Commission on Road Safety, dated May 1947: "Any system under which fear becomes the controlling factor in obtaining the required reaction among so large a section of the public who, as individuals, are generally law abiding, is not, we think, likely to produce the most effective results.
"The British public co-operates with the Police because the relationship between them is generally one of friendly understanding, rather than submission to obtrusive authority, and the more it is realised that the policeman is the friend of the motorist and cyclist who wishes to be a thoroughly safe driver or rider, though the deadly enemy of the deliberate offender, the greater will be the co-operation between the police and road users and the sooner will the standard of road behaviour be improved."
This was a common sense approach to the matter that had long been espoused by the police themselves.
As far as they were concerned the real problem on the roads were those who misused them, whether they were drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.
This attitude prevailed right up to recent times when targets became the obsession, and good policing went out the window.
The despair felt by the police when faced with this problem boiled over in 1965 when ordered by another Labour Government to clamp down on motorists following the introduction of the 70mph limit on motorways, the Police Federation complained: "The motoring public will suffer and so will relations between the police and the public. The final result is going to be that the law will fall into disrepute through lack of men to enforce it"
The message was simple. The police did not have the manpower to go around chasing every motorist who committed a technical breach of the law, they could either chase criminals or chase motorists - they could not do both.
The state of the country today tells us what they eventually decided to do. It is interesting to note that one strong recommendation to the then Minister of Transport, Tom Fraser, for a minimum speed limit on motorways (as existed in North America) was completely ignored.
One cannot help but believe that motoring policy as decided by the Labour Party has always had a tinge of envy about it; they still clung to the idea that motoring was the preserve of the wealthy and not the working man.
The trial of the 70mph speed limit ended in 1967 when another Labour Minister for Transport bought in the new limit.
She also warned that for the first time in motoring history she might be turning the clock back a hundred years by lowering the speed limits on other roads.
When questioned about a minimum speed limit on motorways she replied: "It is an attractive proposition, the dawdling driver could be a danger but there are difficulties of enforcement." (Daily Mail 13th July 1967)
This is of course utter nonsense. The technical problems in enforcing an upper speed limit are precisely the same as enforcing a lower one, and yet here was a Minister whilst announcing to the world that a slow driver could be just as dangerous as a speeding driver, refused to do anything about it.
It is noticeable that over the years the number of people killed on the road was showing a gradual decrease. However, it is quite interesting to view the figures in relation to which party was in power at the time.
When the Conservatives left office in 1964 the number of fatalities on the roads were 6922.
When Labour left in 1970, this had risen to 7,499.
When the Conservatives left in 1974, the figure was 6,876. Labour left in 1979 with a total of 6,831 and when the Conservatives left in 1997 this had been reduced to 3,599. The period of the Conservative governments showed a year on year gradual decrease in the number of road fatalities.
There were many reasons for this but one was the re-affirmation of the policy that every road user was responsible for their own safety.
The number of advertising campaigns on television and the press demonstrated this. One of the most famous was the Green Cross Code man.
In this campaign an actor (David Prowse best known for playing Darth Vader in the Star Wars films) dressed as a superhero appeared at the kerbside to instruct children how to cross the road safely.
The idea might have been a bit corny but the message was sensible and timeless. It was backed up by other campaigns, the 1976 SPLINK campaign starring Doctor Who actor Jon Pertwee and even a rap version in 1983.
These adverts had all been taken off the air by 1990.
Other safety messages included the infamous 'smashing peach' advert. This showed a hammer, pivoted by its handle, being released and smashing into a ripe peach. The resulting messy impact was supposed to convey what happened when metal met matter.
The message was 'Always Cross at a Crossing'. A still from this advert, the moment of impact, was used as a billboard all over the country. It was eventually removed as complaints had been received that certain people thought the image 'unpleasant'.
However this dedication to promulgating the road safety message was about to grind to a halt. It was to be replaced with a campaign of harassment of the motorist that was to have a lasting detrimental effect on the relationship between the public and the police, and bring a halt to the steady reduction in road casualties that Britain had been enjoying over the years.
It started in the late 60s with an invention made by a Dutch Indonesian named Maurice Gatsonides.
A rally driver wanted to establish the exact speed he was cornering at, and the Gatso Camera soon became the most hated word in the motoring vocabulary.
No comments:
Post a Comment