Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-30
DANGER IN PASSING
/. TO RIGHT IS DENIED
Proponents of Plan Say
Change Will Make Safety
Zones Safe.
BY WILLIAM ULLMAN.


Elimination of the manifold dangers
that arise from encroachment upon
the domain of opposite bound traffic
and the preservation of the sanctlty
of the safety zone, which has been so
fagrantly invaded that pedestrians no
longer look upon it as a haven, are
two important benefits to be derived
from the proposal to permit right or
left-hand passing in the District.
This is the fat assertion of a ma
jority of those far-sighted students
of traffic who are ardently supporting
the proposed amendment In the in
terest of safer and more rapid traffic
movement in the National Capital. To
oppose the suggested change in the
local code as dangerous Is to argue
that the present system is productive
of real safety, according to hackers
of right or left-hand passing. Such
an assumption is an absurd contra
vention of the facts, which readily
may be refuted by accident data in
the Capital or in any other city, they
declare.
None "F'oOl-ProOf" Yet.
No proposal to regulate traffic with
safety has yet proved itself to be
fool-proof. and any suggestion to bet
ter, conditions must be considered only
1t is intended to supplant, 1t is pointed
1t is inteded to supplant, 1t is pointed
out by those who declare the benefits
f the proposed change outweigh any
possible disadvantage 1t may have.
The idea that the right or left-hand
passing plan Will endanger pedestrians
by forcing vehicular traffic over to
ic %AaA At.xf.
against with particular emphasis.
Instead of suffering as a result of
the proposed change, the pedestrian
actually will reap rich reward in
the form of safety, 1t is pointed out
on the basis of experience which other
metropolitan centerS have had with
similar regulations. All traffic con-
troll is based upon the theory that the
middle of the block belongs to the
motor car and the unguarded inter-
section to the pedestrian. Now the
thought is offered that because the
motorist refuses to use much more
the remainder has been usurped by
the pedestrian and is a large induce
ment to jaywalking.
1t is not to be denied that the pedeS-
trian has been encouraged to cross
the street in the middle of the block
by the practice of motorists In leav-
ing one-half or more Of the street I'M
travelled, say some Of the Nations
leading traffic engineers. 1t has been
found, for instance, where travel Is
so heavy that every lane on the street
is used, the futility of trying. to cross
is so Immediately apparent as to fore
stall any attempt. The pedestrian.
thus is taught the traffic procedure
that has been found to be truly safe
crossing at the intersection where, If
no policeman is in control, he has the
right Of way.
Makes Safety Zones Safe.
In Los Angeles and in other cities
this has been found to be true IN
every circumstance That 1t would
be equally true in the National Capt.
tai within a short time is the con-
tention of those who looked upon the
proposed amendment as one of the
most progressive offered in recent
months.
Another advantage that would in
nure to the benefit of the pedestrian
under right or left side passing would
be the preservation of the safety zone.
At present, with traffic in opposite
directions battling fender to fender
for the exact middle Of the street, the
unsafety of the painted zones is Inn
mediately apparent and the pedestrian
is driven from this midstreet haven
which was designed for him alone.
BY moving Traffic out of the middle
of the street and forcing it to make
use of the wasted street surface near
est the curbs. the safety zones would
come to have a. real meaning, propo-
nents Of the revised regulation point
out. 1t would make far easier the
task Of apprehending and Furnishing
the mOtorist who presumes to violate
the isle. of safety and would assure
an early elimination of this menacing
injustice.
The present regulations dangers
can be determined by sweeping
glance at traffic on Sixteenth street
at any. fairly busy traffic period, OBJ
servers Of conditions declare. They
point out that with a slow driver
heading the vehicular procession, and
with only left-hand passing permitted,
the driver who desires to travel at the
legal speed limit must swing far over
into the domain Of the motorist travel
ing in the opposite direction II he Is
to get ahead.
Causes Dozens Of Accidents.
That this is productive OF dozens
Of accidents and potential mishaps,
Of varying degrees of seriousness, is
not to be questioned.
That vehicles must be kept over to
the right II it Is to be safe Is one of
the oldest principles Of traffic control.
1t was true in far less important
measure in the days Of the horse
drawn vehicle. With cars travelling
at tremendous speed and the traffic
stream marvelously accelerated, 1t
has become imperatively necessary in
the present era.
Large cities which have made an
intensive and far-reaching study Of
the situation have discovered that
there Is only one way to force traffic
from the middle of the street. They
do not argue that 1t Is an absolutely
perfect way They maintain, how
ever, that it Is the best idea advanced
on the subject.
Their remedy is to permit passing
on either the right or left side.
What has been their experience?
Simply that there Is very little pass
ing on the right side because traffic
Immediately moves over where ii be-
longs, where 1t lis safest.
According to observers who favor
such a regulation for Washington,
there Is absolutely no ground for as
Stunning that the same desirable effect
will not be achieved in the National
Capital Immediately after the amend
ment is adopted.