Evening star., 1925-02-15
individual Motoring on Trial
With Prospect of ''Conuiction''
Experts Tending To,cord Principle of
Auerages in Working Out Safest
Control of Traffic.

|
is to subordinate, even submerge, in
dividuality. in order to Keep every
unit doing the same thing. 1t is :,
| case where the majority rules.
| AS one Of the prophets points out,
| individuality in driving mus. be the
| chief cause OF accidents, for there
has never been an instance where
| the average of group of drivers got
into trouble simultaneously.
This point is rather interesting
| with respect to speed. 1t is a matter
of record that automobilists every
| where are driving faster and faster.
Speeds Of 25. so and 35 miles an hour
| are becoming rather common in many
cities, and highway speeds are pro-
! portionally higher. Observers will
stand at the street corners and watch
| this traffic speed by, often reaching
| the conclusion that this increased
great number of annual accidents and
| fatalities.
But what are the facts? Which
drivers Of the hundreds passing get
| into trouble-those that are keeping &
| up the pace, following the crowds,
or those that are exceeding the
| average speed or tagging behind ac-
cording to their own notions OF how
| traf11c ought to move?
Find Answer to Safety.
1t is maintained that If the average
of the drivers were wrong in run
ming at the average speed, regardless
of what that speed happened to be in
miles per hour, the average driver
would smash into something. That
he does nothing OF the sort is en-
couraging many persons to believe
that the answer to safety is t. sub
merge individuality and keep all
drivers driving alike.
An effort would be made, Of course.
to improve the average. But this
would be accomplished by means of
changes in traffic control, not
through individuality of the drivers.
II, for instance, 1t is found advisa-
BILE to speed up traffic, the officials
would reduce the time allowed for
cross traffic in the boulevard system,
tho boulevard traffic. Drivers, find
ing that they could not travel as far
between stops as they used to. would
drive a little faster. In doing so they
would discover that it is essential to
have better brakes, better adjusted
motors, and to be more efficient in the
handling of their cars. Greater speed
could be attained, therefore, without
danger.
Should an individual motorist take
notion to cover greater distances
between stops the chances are 10 to
l that he would soon feature in an
accident. He would be out of key
with the whole scheme. He would
be sacrificing safety to individuality.
Railroad Practice Cited.
1t is to Offset this sort of danger
that traff1c experts are turning to the
plan Of developing traffic as a whole
rather than considering It as COM
posed OF varying units. At present
there is a tendnecy to give the right
Of way to persons who seem capable
Of getting across quickly. There is
lot of discrimination in traffic con-
troll as a result Of recognizing vary
ing grades of experience, aud now
and again there is a miscalculation
and some one pays the penalty.
In railroad traffic control individ-
uality is totally eliminated. An en-
gineer has to be up to the average of
competency before he is allowed to
pilot at all. Any skill he reveals over
and above this the roads regard as
velvet. and they count upon it only
to minimize trouble in the event that
the system as q whole goes wrong.
An engineer is supposed to operate
on a definite schedule. He may be
perfectly capable of making time be-
tween points. but the system forces
him to submerge his individuality
and operate his train in the same
way that other engineers along the
same line operate theirs. The result
Is that there are fewer bursts OF in
dividuality and fewer accidents.
Something on this order would
seem to be developing in motordom.
And II there is no other argument in
ia af 4 fs
there is something in borrowing
leaf from the experience of an older
and wiser form Of transportation.
(Copyright, 1921