Evening star., 1938-12-30
Pedestrian Protection

The varying viewpoints of the
citizens of Washington have been
presented on the matter of proposed
regulations to control pedestrian
traffic. AS result the Commis-
sioners have indicated they probably
will go part way in solving the
problem.
1t appears pedestrians may be
required to obey officers or lights at
controlled intersections, but will not
be limited to crosswalks in traversing
streets. This possible decision on
vexing problem is a step in the right
direction but hardly solution, in
view of accident figures presented by
the Traffic Bureau.
These showed that in thirty five
months two hundred and eighty-six
persons were killed on the streets of
the Capital. OF these two hundred
and thirteen were pedestrians. The
data did not reveal whether or not
any of these pedestrians were respon-
sible for the accidents which took
their lives. They did show, however,
that most of the tragedies occurred in
outlying sections, one hundred and
twenty were crossing streets between
intersections, twenty-five were cross
Ing at corners but not in crosswalks,
eighteen were walking against sig
nails, forty were properly in cross
walks, three had "go" signals, and
seven were in safety zones or on
sidewalks. Obviously no pedestrian
legislation could have prevented
fatalities such as those involving the
last fifty on the list. Careful driving
and strict enforcement of the existing
motor laws is the only answer in such
cases. The regulation which the
Commissioners apparently are ready
to adopt would have been effective in
the cases of the eighteen who were
going against signals. But it is
the regulation which seemingly is
frowned upon which might have
saved the one hundred and forty
five who were not in crosswalks
1t Is interesting to note that the
strongest pleas made on behalf of
pedestrians were presented by the
two largest organizations of motor
lists. One of these groups urged a
modification of the proposal which
would have prohibited crossing be-
tween intersections, to one in line
with the State law in Connecticut,
where pedestrians are forbidden to
use a highway "negligently or reck-
lessly." The other group proposed a
comprehensive program calling for
the development of public opinion
In support of sound measures for
pedestrian convenience and safety,
to inform motorists and pedestrians
as to their respective rights and
obligations, and to adjust physical
equipment to safeguard and facili-
tate pedestrian traffic.
These are sound proposals. But
this is program which would require
many months to carry out. It would
solve, primarily, the problem in the
congested areas of the business Sec
ton. But most of the deaths have
occurred in outlying sections.
The responsibility is the Commits
sioners'. They have the authority,
they know the facts, they have heard
the views of the citizens. That these
views were not entirely in agreement
Is to be expected, that the large
majority agreed on the first proposal,
and a great many approved the
second, in one form or another, is an
indication public support is not want
ing. This is the first step. And it
should be followed as quickly as
possible by such others as the pro-
posed revision of the system of lights,
and general restatement of the
respective rights of pedestrians and