Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-22
Cheerful Insouciance.


latest statement Of the traffic once re-
garding the left-hand turn that an at
tempt is being made to confuse the pub
lie on the subject of uniformity. on
Tuesday the traffic office triumphantly
announced the result Of QUESTIONABLE
sent to one hundred and fifty-one cities
But with that cheerful insouciance
which has characterized many OF its
public statements 1t proceeded to an
nounce that only fifty-four OF these cit
les used the Hoover turn and that the
others were guilty Of practicing what Is
hazily described as the inside turn
thereby furnishing irrefutable proof, in
the traffic Offices eyes, that II Washing
ton was not uniform in It's wide swinging
left-hand turn neither were most Of the
other cities of the country.
1t is deplorable to cast doubt on such
a magnificent triumph as that just
scored by the traffic office, but there Is
one slight inaccuracy which should be
called not only to its attention for fu-
ture dissertations on the same subject,
but the public as WELL in order that
herring may not be drawn across the
trail of uniformity in traffic regulations
in the National Capital. This slight in
accuracy in the announcement OF the
traffic office is simply this: That only
fifty-four cities use the Hoover turn,
when, as q matter of fact, all Of the
one hundred and fifty-one cities reply
ing to the QUESTIONABLE use the Hoover
turn. Not just flfty-four Of them, but
all of them.
Naturally, this mistake by the trafic
ONCE in its public announcement was
made unintentionally. To avoid future
mistakes of the same nature 1t might be
well for the ONCE to study diligently the
Hoover Model Municipal Trafic Ordi-
nance. It is code prepared under the
direction of President Hoover when he
was Secretary of Commerce and was
accepted and approved by the greatest
body Of traffic experts ever gathered
together for an attempted solution OF
the problem that affects every man and
woman and child in the United States.
A study of the code would reveal the
fact that the paragraph pertaining to
left turns reads as follows:
The operator of vehicle intending
to turn to the left at an intersection
or into highway shall approach the
point of turning in the lane OF traf1c
to the right Of and next to the center
nf the AAAu0U and nmEaMa MfhARRrfmA
directed by turning markets. the OPP
orator Of a vehicle IN turning left at
an intersection shall pass to the
right Of the intersection before turn
ing. Upon streets laned for trafic
and upon one-way streets left turn
shall be made from the left lane of
traffic.
Perusing this paragraph it is obvious
that the fifty-four cities referred to re-
quire automobiles to pass, in the left
trafic lane, around the button In the
center of the intersection and that the
other cities referred to as using the "in-
side turn" require automobiles to follow
turning markers" and make the ma
newer, likewise from the left lane of
traffic, but before the center of the in
terSection is reached. Both Of these
turns are fundamentally the same and
both are prescribed in the same para
graph by the Hoover Model Municipal
TRAFFIC Ordinance.
There is no need for the Washington
trafi1c office to try to becloud the issue
on uniformity. There Is no issue. WASH
ington, Cleveland and Springfield, Ohio,
use the rotary turn, made. from the
right traffic lane-a turn that Is not
only dangerous and impracticable, but q
breeder Of trafic congestion. Ali the
other cities of the country use the Hoo
yer turn, which is made from the left
lane Of trafhc, whether the center Of
the intersection is rounded or not. The
three cities mentioned are not follow
ing the trail of uniformity laid down by
the other thousands. What possible ex-
cuse can these three cities have for
arguing that they are right and the
others are wrong? Washingtonians are
not concerned with the other two, but
are much annoyed at the ostrich" tao
tics of their own city In a vitality i'm
portant matter.