The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1925-08-10
With The
IAIibi Artists
Street Crossing Rule
Means Little to Auto
lists, Injured Vic
tins Find
Penalty Seen As Joke
BY DONALD McDOUGAL

The present traffic code has
always had regulation giving the
right Of way to pedestrians at
crossings, but it doesn't mean any
thing.
A good many pedestrians have
been slammed at street intersec-
tions lately, and heaven only
knows how many have escaped
through quick thinking and still
quicker hopping.
That rule is violated proba bly,
five hundred times day and on
two occasions in the last six weeks
1t has been violated with fatal re-
suits.
Evidently that regulation Is OF
life-and.death Importance, yet it
carries the same penalty as park
ing half an hour overtime and has
smaller minimum penalty than
saying hell in public.
If the trainers OF the code held
this provision In such slight
esteem, is it to be wondered at
that a certain type of motorist
should take the same View
Probably the ma jority OF Wash
ington drivers never heard of that
regulation-it is covered. along
with several hundred others, under
a 81 to $500 blanket penalty.
Suppose the minimum penalty
for violation of this eminently
just rule had been put at 500
very few motorists would over
look 1t. The mere fact that it
carried 50 much higher penalty
than the others would impress
drivers with its Importance.
This crime Of threatening the
lives of pedestrians at crossings
is inexcusable. 1t is committed
either willfully or through crimi-
nal negligence and it is RESPONSE
hle for large share of the
casualty list.
To give it the same minimum
penalty that applies, for instance,
to splitting on the sidewalk
doesn't induce any noticeable re-
spect for the traffic code among
the more thoughtless drivers
who are the very ones it is most
necessary to impress.
That the courts can impose
larger fine for this offense does
not rectify the original error in
the code. Few besides the offend.
ing drivers know when the court
takes such action.
1t is highly important for
drivers to become familiar with
the code. Why should they be
compelled to examine court de-
cisions in order to find out what
the code means? If this offense
is deserving Of a higher penalty
than the general run, why not
say so in the code, where the'
fact can be impressed on the
minds Of those who read 1t?
There is no doubt that in put
ting a blanket penalty on all vio-
tations of rules prescribed by him.
the director has overlooked good
chance to impress drivers with
the importance OF this life-and-
death regulation. along with other
rules on which, in a good many
cases. life itself depends.
We can't help thinking that he
can save much trouble in the long
run-that he can save life itself.
perhaps-by revising the code and
fixing higher penalties for the
more dangerous violations.
It's fuss and feathers, pomp
and circumstance that impress
the general run Cf men. A little
81 Violation-WiIo going to
bother about that? But a $50
violation-ah, that's different!
The Directors present plan for
safening up the crossings in the
congested section will help to
keep people out of the hospital.
very likely, but how about the
many crossings where there are
no policemen?
The only safety FOR pedestrians
in those places lies in the close
observance of the right of way
law.
Why should that law be buried
out Of sight in a 81 to $500 grave
along with onc-w.y street and