Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-07
Police Laxity Flayed.
Nonchalance Surprises Citizen
As Cars Escape Crash.
To the Editor Of The star:

| To the Editor of The Star:
| / note with interest an article In
| The Evening Star of January 4, 1921.
! by William Ullman. In which the aiI.
| perintendent OF police and the dircc
! tor OF traffic are alleged to he con.
cerned with the hazardous situation
now prevailing" regarding the rtck.
less operation Of light delivery trucks.
whose careless speeding and usurpa
| ton of the rights of pedestrians and
other motorists has turned the traffic
stream of the National Capital into n
menacing maelstrom." 1t Is further
stated in this article that the director
of traffic declares that the unbridled
exhibitions OF lswless driving by de.
livery car opera tors constitutes the
| gravest traffic situation in the city
today" and that he invites the as
slstance of the public in the endeavor
| to put an end to this practice.
All OF which il very interesting If
true. You may perhaps understa nd
my point of view in making this com
ment after consideration of the follow
ing account Of an incident which Oc-
CURED about year ago:
One fne morning. while strolling
down Seventeenth street, arrived at
the corner OF Seventeenth and II
streets. where I stopped temporarily,
perforce. to allow traffic to pass. At
this moment a. Ford delivery truck
was approaching the intersection from
the east along X street. At the same
time A. Cadillac limousine was APP
preaching the intersection from the
north along Seventeenth street The
two aforesaid motor vehicles arrived
at the inter ction simultaneously, the
Ford truck travelling At an approx
| mate speed of something in excess Of
20 miles per hour and the Cadillac at
an approximate speed OF 20 miles per
hour or slightly less. In this situation
1t would appear from the traffic regu
lation prescribed by article 9 section
: Id, that the truck should have
| looked out for and given the right Of
way to" the Cadillac. However. the
driver of the truck was no doubt un-
familiar with such rigid and unneces
sarN regulations and so continued at
nabated speed across the intersec-
ton, forcing the Cadillac 10 come to
a very abrupt stop in the middle Of
the intersection, the Cadillac thereby
avoiding what appeared to he an in
evitable collision. tNo doubt the
Cadillac had four trusty brakes.)
ConcurrentIy with the observation
of the above details, l noted a police
officer with motor cycle standing on
the opposite corner of this same inter
section. l fully expected to see said
police officer forthwith mount his
chariot. proceed after the truck and
place the driver of said truck under
arrest for any or all of the following
charges: ta) Failing to slow down
upon approaching street intersec-
ton: (b) driving at speed In excess
of that allowed by law; lcl failing to
give the right of way, as required by
a "a md IN rookleq drjv
would not even have been sur
prised to have heard him congratu-
late the chauffeur of the aforesaid
Cadillac for the eXcellency of his
brakes. But no. The officer remained
nonchalantly at his post.
This seeming indifference to take a
hand in a situation where an mex
cusable collision was only averted by
the prompt footwork of a driver who
no doubt had keen desire to save his
car at all costs aroused my curiosity
no little. So l approached the offlcer
and engaged in the following CONVEX
sation with him;
"Oficer l am curious to know
whether you observed the near col
lision between the Ford truck and the
Cadillac a moment ago"
Oficer-well l cav the two auto
mobiles pass each other, If that's what
you mean.
Then / am further curious to know
why you didn't follow the truck and
arrest the driver"
Oficer-What would 1 arrest him
for?
For deliberate violation of traffic
regulations, thereby engendering seri-
Gus collision"
Qficer-There wasn't a collision.
was there?
mo. But it was for no other reason
than that the Cadillac, which quite
obviously had the right of way, gave
it up and damned on his brakes.
Oficer-Well. no damage was done,
was there?
The irrefutable logic OF the officers
replies was not to be denied. So con-
tinued on my way to ponder on this
new and startling theory, so ably eX-
posed by the police officer. for curbing
traffic hazards. But let a car be
found parked in a place where an in
nocent little sign proclaims NO park
ing, No altruistic inactivity here
this is a serious traffic menace, re-
curing prompt action!