The Washington herald., 1913-02-23
AIMLESS footing NOT
REAL WARNING SIGNAL
Few Motorists Exercise Common Sense
in Use Of Horn, Says
Charles johnson.

In an article in the current issue of
Motor Print. Charles Johnson declares
that most motorists lose sight of the
real mission OF the automobile warning
signal. Describing conditions in Los An
geles and Lower CALIFORNIA; locality Sc
lected as typical because of the large
number of automobiles In use-Mr. John
sons says:
81 doubt IL in 10 per cent of the signal.
ing by motorists that came under my
observation there was evidence of the
proper understanding Of what the auto
horn is for.
crossing. have frequently observed thar
the Los Angeles motorist does not sound
his signal at all. but often Immediately
begins 10 sound IL as soon as he passes
one crossing on his way to the crossing
a block beyond. Theoretically, he does
this to give ample warning to the indi-
vidual at the farther crossing. Prac-
tically. what he should do is to sound
the note quarter of a block from the
crossing. which has dual effect: II
causes the pedestrian who is about to
step into the street to halt. and gives
the pedestrian in the roadway ample
time to get out of the way. II the horn
is blown at the further end of the block
and remains silent when near the cross
ing. the pedestrian has no means of
knowing of the immediate proximity of
the machine.
For the six months ending July 1, 1872,
there were l,135 automobile accidents in
Los Angeles, in which $50 persons were
injured. OF these $50 were struck or
run over by machines. There were 40
accidents at crossings. and l2i between
crossings. The city council has now pass
ed an ordinance defining a proper warn
ing signal as an abrupt note, sufficiently
loud to be heard above the noise of traf-
fic,' and restricting the use of this to its
true function: as a warning of danger.
Another ordinance is being urged which
will prohibit pedestrians from crossing
the street at the intersection of streets
where traffic officers are stationed ex-
cept under the direction of the latter.
My own careful study of the warn
ing signal problem leads me to the con-
clusion that there is only one proper
method of procedure. The first step in
this direction is the framing of law
which defines within limits Of reasonable
elasticity the sound that constitutes an
adequate warning signal, the prohibition
OF the use OF such signal other than as
a warning of danger, and the prompt
punishment of the noise maker who uses
a danger signal as a play toy.
''Such a law must not prohibit, but
must regulate. The police power OF no
city is sufficient to enable the municipal
ity to prohibit the use of any public
safety device within reason. The city
does possess the power of regulation,
which, enables it TO prevent any article
or product being transformed into a nui-
sance. but regulation does not carry with
it the power Of prohibition in such in
stances.
Then, when a city has the proper law.
the duty devolves upon the law-abiding.
far-minded motorist to unite in the mat
ter Of educating themselves and others
as to the proper use of the automobile
warning signal. Once a right law is cre-
ated, once motorists and nonmotorists
understand Alright the significance of the
warning signal, once punishment is sure
to follow. sure and swift, upon the mis-
use of the warning signal, then the acci-
dent roll will be reduced to a minimum.
The same situation as that described
above exists In almost every city in the
United States. although in less degree
than in Los Angeles, where all classes
use the motor car