The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-07-08
AUTOMOBILE REcKLEssNEss.

\ -.
1t Is high time that vigorous pro
test should be raised against the reck-
| lessness OF automobile drivers here
abouts. Two disastrous wrecks were
recently reported on account Of sheer
reck lessness in automobile driving. ono
where an automobile driver wrecked q
milk wagon, and speeded away without
inquiry as TO whether anyone had been
hurt or killed Yesterday morning a
hcadon collision between two automo-
biles near Beck S Hot Springs WAS re-
ported in The Tribune, both automo-
biles being wrecked; one at least had
evidently been going at a reckless
speed. The miraculous happened, in
that no one was seriously hurt; but il
could easily happen that more than one
wonld he badly crippled, or even killed
| in such an accident
IT is not at all uncommon TO read Of
automobile accidents, it being quite
generally claimed that the chauffeur
gave the usual warning by signal,
which was disreearded. But right there
is one of the obvious faIlacies of
the automobile drivers They seem
never to think that il is their duty to
stop, but II is everybody else S duty TO
get out of their way. All they have
to do is to give their signals, and
everybody else is expected to Jump.
But there would appear to be no rea.
son why an automobile driver. on see
ing that his signals are not observed,
should not stop. He might reasonably
conclude that something was wrong,
that somebody was in distress, or un.
able to recognize or respond to his sig
nails In such q case il is obviously
his duty to stop. and not TO keep on. to
the peril or afliction OF others AM
automobile can. be stopped when the
driver wishes TO stop it and il should
be stopped when the signals are un-
needed. on the theory that either the
warned is so situated that he does not
hear the signals, OF is unable to re.
spond TO them. y Automobile drivers have
duty In this respect. INST as much
as the drivers of horses have or as
pedestrians have. The pedestrian does
not go wildly careering along the side
walk, expecting everybody to get out
of his way, or claiming that it is his
right to order people to give way
TO him. He goes reasonably, and
II is give and take, allowing of the
easy progress of all. SO it should be |
with the automobile. And if there is |
danger of collision, it is not enough |
for the chauffeur to give signal for
else 10 get out of the way;
1t IS his duty &c stop and see why his
signals are not observed
AS matter of fact, it is not any
body's duty TO obey the signals OF an
driver, any more than it
would be his duty to obey the command !
or anyone he might meet to get out
of his way. All have equal rights on
the public thoroughfares, and ali should |
respect those rights, and all should be
protected in them. But, above all, the
necessary warning seems proper now
that AN automobile driver has not full
fled mis- whole duty when he gives the
signal for other people TO get out of
MS way. When they do not it is not
ms privilege or right 10 run over and
smash them, but il is his clear duty and
TO stop and see what is the
matter. He should, as should every
other person in the common use of
,ubEc utility or privilege, make use of
lis rights in such a way as not to in
ringe upon the equal rights of others.
No one has right in any public
highway TO command somebody else
% get out of his way; but that is the
way that automobile drivers commonly
,oustrue their signals. as warning
'or other people TO give up their rights
md let them have all the rights of
way that there are. 1t is an auto
ratio assumption that should be
checked at once, even though with a
good many it has become fixed habit.