The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1925-05-04
With The
|Alibi Artists
A Cross Section of the
Daily Grind in Judge
Hits Court.
Read EN- and Weep.
By DONALD McDOUGAL.
The Raw Material,

We went through the traffic
regulations again the other day
looking for some more jokes.
We found quite few of them,
but we're going to save 'em for
rainy days, when there isn't much
doing in Traffic Court.
We'd nearly finished our Sec
ond reading, and were about
ready to wind up the clock. put
out the cat. and take one last
lingering sniff at the home-brew
crock, but before closing the book
we came across paragraph
that's likely to turn out no joke.
It's the paragraph about brakes
one of the most important In
the list. Next. to speeding over
intersections. more accidents re-
eult from poor brakes than from
any other cause.
Swallows Camel.
This regulation would be ideal
II it meant anything. 1t demands
that every motor vehicle shall
have two sets or brakes-thats
fine-and goes into the utmost
detail about dry. hard. level road.
free from loose material. etc. But
the important question of who is
responsible for providing the
brakes it leaves up in the air.
- AS far as the regulation is con-
cerned no one knows whether TO
hold the owner, the driver, or
Santa Claus. It has the same de-
feet that the old regulation had
under its provisions you cant
compel the ownsr to equip ms
vehicle with brakes.
Vaccinated.
All you can do is send the
driver to Occoquan if he hasn't
got from 81 To $300-but the
owner is immune, unless he is
also the driver.
That isn't so bad in the case OF
pleasure vehicles, because they're
mostly driven by the owners.
But. trucks-that's different. Nine
out of ten trucks are driven by
employees, and are hardest to stop.
Under this new regulation. as
under the old one, the poor driver
must dig up the price OF keeping
the brakes in condition. II the
boss won't. or the vehicle doesn't
have any brakes. As far as the
regulation is concerned, the
owner can keep them in repair or
not, as he chooses.
The Golden Rule FlOps.
In the last two years we've re-
ported forty or fifty cases where
he chooses not to, and probably
others got by US.
The brake regulation applies
only to those who drive their own
car. The non-owning driver is
held only by courtesy, so to speak,
and it's very doubtful that he
could be held at all il he was
able to retain a lawyer to de-
fend him.
As a matter of cold justice, 1t
doesn't seem right to send the
victimized truck driver to Deco
GUAM because his boss refuses to
keep the equipment in good con-
dition.
A driver who takes out a diff
ferent truck every day must
stand the expense OF repairing the
brakes on all Of them, or risk the
workhouse. IL the boss neglects
that duty-and as the regulation
doesn't touch him, and can't be
made to, he will neglect it occa-
sionally. That's when the rest Of
US begin jumping.
Georges Job.
The regulations about license
plates and headlights seem to be
in the same boat, The code
demands that vehicles shall be
equipped with these necessary
adjuncts, but follows the princi-
pie Let George do it" when it
comes to telling who shall supply
the equipment.
The result is. just what 1t was
before. that in many cases the
court must either penalize man
who is, in common-sense justice,
utterly innocent, or else allow
very dangerous violation Of the
law to go unnoticed.
In the issue of December s,
1924. the Alibi Column contained
these pregnant words:
and we hope the new
traffic code will not only demand
that machines shall be supplied
with good and adequate brakes,
but will offer at least a suggestion
as to who shall supply them"
There's no two ways about it
the Director hasn't been reading
the Alibi Column.