The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-06
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT
I. D. Jewell Takes Up the Problem
of Street Car Stops.
Writes From brunswick, Me. to Wig
crorsiy Protest Arninst the Near
side Pznn-ConpInint About Al
legged Noisy Scissors Grinders,
Umbrella 1-c-aers, and Huci.stcrs.

Thomas B. Jewell, of 1416 F Street
to the Commissioners. protests against
u change in TIE regulations requiring
street cars to stop on the far side Of
the street crossings.
AS the proposition to again change the
regulation in regard to stopping cars is
being urged by some persons, l wish to
present some objections to such change.
The people have again become accus-
toned to the far side rule after a long
period CT uncertainty and mistakes while
ne cars were REQUIRED to stop on the
near side. This Is most important con-
slderaticn, both for the convenience of
he people andeAto prevent accidents.
Everyone knows now what to expect
and that is far Safer than frequent chang
ing of the regulation with the resulting
uncertainty. =
All persons crossing rapid transit
lines, whichever party has the right of
way, must exercise some degree of eau
ton, and such care is more easily and
naturally used if it is certainly known
that the cars cross before stopping, 9TH
erwise the party crossing is apt to take
scme risk in the expectation that the car
may step to receive or to let off passen-
gers on the near side of the street
Even in as clean a city as ours much
CT the time in the TALL winter, and spring
the crossing is 4 much better place at
which to take or aiight from a car than
at some untrodden or uncleaned place
away from the crossing. If a return were
made to the near side rule ali must
tradGe through mud and slush in bad
weather, when open cars cannot be used
to reach the platform. This is an i'm
portant consideration affecting tie per-
sonal convenience of every citizen using
the cars in bad weather.
Probably no one approaching u car
line from a side street and desiring to
ride failed to experience the inccnven-
fence and generally the impossibilty of
signaling the cars TO stop during the
period when the near side rule was in
force. The reason is obvious.
This renewed agitation of question so
recently settled in favor of the far-side
rule, after a fair trial OF the near-side
stop, seems to have been undertaken with
the mistaken idea that the recent deplora-
bic accident to the firemen was in some
degree attributable to the rule in force.
II seems to me that one moments thought
must convince any candid man that sucn
VAS Eot the case. That car, it is under
stood, made no stop at the street where
the accident happened. and so its speed
and position at the moment CT the accident
were entirely unaffected by the regulation
ard would have been as it was Whichever
rule k2d been in force. l submit tAat SO
far as such accidents. fortunately rare, are
preyentable, the second or the reasons
given above in favor Of the fsT-si6e rule,
shows THAT larger degree OF security
against a repetition exists with the pres
ent rcgu.sticB tfsn can be secured by ii
return TO the near side rule so recently
abandoned after fair trial
1t must also be- remembered in the dis
oussion OF this question that one seeing a
car approaching when the near side stop
was 81 force could rot know at one.
vss-.as.ih1cT il would stop or cross over.
whereas under the f1r-sde rule one al
ways knows except at 2 few exceptional
crossings, what to expect, fact which is
certainty of extreme Importance in such
cases at many ;i4nes
The letter OF Mr.. Jewell has been noted
ty The Commissioners and fled for Goa.
siderattcn when the subject Of stopping
street cars is again taken up for consider
st.c-.