Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-08-25
Drunken Motorists and the Public.

n our correspondents Justly indignant
demand for protection against drunken
automobile" drivers. printed in another
column ON this page the great majority OF
the public will concur: and with his Convlu-
sion, that protection can he assured only by
adequate punishment the thought OF the com
nlunity Will agree. There are two ways OF
securing the safety Of the public against the
increasing crime of drunken driving: one is
already in the hands of ma gistrates and
jUres, while the other Council has ohs,inatelv
refused To provide.
In other cities and States drunken opera
tors OF automobiles frequently are given iail
sentences In this State few magistrates
have had the courage 10 intiict this meet
punishment. and still fewer jures have shown
sufficient intelligence and appreciation OF the
gravity OF the oiienSe to sustain on appeal
the sentence imposed by the trial ma Gstrate.
II negro steals watermelon the justice
often unhestatingly sentences him TO work
on tho roads. and if he appeals It jury sternly
upho!ds the peace and dignity OF the Common
wealth by affirming the MAGISTRATES decision
Bnt II an owner of an automobile or friend
OF an owner, gets blind drunk and careers
madIy IN a Empowered machine through
the streets or over the country roads TO the
imminent danger Of hundreds OF lives he is
fined some inconsiderable sum. which he is
generally abundantly able TO pay. and is at
liberty 10 repeat the crime as often as he
pleascs or until his money. or that of his
father or his friends. gives out.
Ills unlimited opportunity TO repeat his Of
Tense l. not due to magistrates or iuries
however; it is, III this community, the direct
fault of Council, which is clothed with ample
authority TO control this danger but which
porsistently refuses To take the necessary
steps and adopt measures already in force in
most enlightened communities As has been
pointed out many times, there is no personal
license Tor automobile operators. except in
Inc case OF professional chauifcurs There is
no examination OF their ability to drive cars
and. indeed. except for tho age limit there
IS absolutely no restriction. no attempt to
safeguard the public
Consequently, any person OF lawful age
sixteen years--may operate a car anywhere
in Richmond, without any knowledge or ey
pcriencc and without Interference 4 case
IN point is that OF the woman who was
charged yesterday with having driven an
electric recklessly because she was alleged
!" nave been unable TO operate il properlv
ne evidence sustained the charge and she
was fined; but there was nothing in law or
ordinance To prevent her from leaving Police
court and Immediately attempting 10 RIM
me same car, or a siXty-horsc-powor gasoline
car. for that matter
ana the same conditions apply To the
drunken driver. The traffic ordinance pro-
Woes that the license OF person convicted
oil having driven any motor propelled vehicle
"hlIe III an intoxicated condition shall be
revoked: and the Police Justice sometimes
aplcinnly pronounccs this sentence Ana Tho
"hoic thing is joke. Tor the reason that
unless he is a professional chauffeur he has
u" licels" II is a Very real danger that
cohirontS our correspondent, aud every other
resident, and ii will continue TO menace tho
public until magistrates iuries and Connect
are forced by public opinion 10 adont tho
measures plainly demanded