and causes, and methods of prevention.” Twenty States made no attempt to collect accident statistics. Only 8 States required that accidents resulting in personal injury be reported to the commissioner of motor vehicles or similar centralized authority, and 38 required railroads and common carriers to report highway accidents.[1]
The Committee on Traffic Control reported that high road crowns, a carryover from the earlier days of horsedrawn traffic, caused the “currents of traffic” to hug the middle of the road instead of keeping to the right. Hand signals to warn others of the intentions of drivers were not standardized, causing confusion and hazard. The Committee concluded that it was impossible to fix any safe speed limit but that traveling at a speed of over 35 miles an hour should be considered unreasonable and evidence of reckless driving. The Committee doubted the feasibility of imposing minimum speed limits on heavily traveled highways, even though failure to follow the prevailing speed was a recognized cause of accidents.[2]
The Committee on Construction and Engineering brought in a long list of inadequacies in the highways and recommended that no paved road or street should be less than 18 feet wide, or any bridge less than 22 feet wide. Rural highways should be provided with emergency off-road stopping places at intervals not exceeding 300 feet, and stopping on the traveled way should then be prohibited. Grades for primary high- ways should be 6 percent or less but might go up to 9 percent in the mountains; the minimum curve radius should be 300 feet, and a 300-foot sight distance should be provided everywhere on main highways. For safety, high crowns should be reduced and curves superelevated and widened.[3] A white centerline stripe should be painted on the pavement to indicate no-passing danger sections such as curves and hilltops, and signs warning of hazards such as curves and railroad crossings should be uniform throughout the United States.[4] Noting that 10 percent of all fatalities were at railroad grade crossings, the Committee recommended that a priority program be set up to eliminate the most dangerous crossings first.[5]
The Committee on the Motor Vehicle reported that a vehicle speed governor would be desirable but that as yet a practical one had not been devised. The most urgent safety problem facing the industry was the design of headlights that would adequately illuminate the road ahead without blinding oncoming drivers. Illumination engineers had worked out combinations of lenses and mirrors, but these compromises were difficult to keep in adjustment and were far from satisfactory.[N 1] Another difficult problem was providing adequate vision for the driver. The Committee thought that “Some device for cleaning the windshield from rain and snow, that can be conveniently operated by the driver should be available . . .” and also that “All windshields should be designed so that they can be opened to allow clear vision in case circumstances make it impossible to keep the windshield clean.”[6] This Committee also thought that vehicles should be so designed that the accelerator could not be easily confused with the brake pedal and all vehicles should have brakes capable of stopping the vehicle in 50 feet from a speed of 20 miles per hour.[7]
The Conference approved and recommended the adoption by legislative, administrative, technical and educational bodies of a wide range of measures “which, if carried out even in part, will effect an immediate reduction in the accident toll.” It also recommended that the States, as the sovereign political units closest to the problem, take the lead by passing adequate motor vehicle laws and setting up suitable machinery for administering them and for policing the highways, registering vehicles and licensing drivers. To the Federal Government, the Conference assigned the role of encouragement, assembly and distribution of information, and the development and use of good practices, leaving the achievement of uniformity to the voluntary action of the various States. Under legislative principles the Conference declared,
There is in the opinion of the Conference, a tendency to include far too much detail in legislation. This not only divides responsibility but also hinders progress toward uniformity. Laws should be so drafted as to include only those features which must be authorized by legislation, leaving the great mass of detailed regulations to be prescribed by the responsible officials whose orders should, within the limits fixed by statute, have the effect of law. There should be a minimum of restrictive laws and regulations, for the history of transportation shows that restrictive measures written without regard to economic needs have always proved a failure.[8]
For lack of reliable statistics, the Conference was unable to come to any formal conclusion as to the causes of highway accidents. However, there is little doubt that most of the delegates agreed with Secretary Hoover when he said,
It is impossible to put the whole blame for the deplorable conditions upon any particular individuals or any particular classes of traffic. If we were to analyze the facts presented to the conference as to the causes of this enormous death roll (sic) and injury we would find that incompetence, carelessness, and recklessness are the largest contributors to this ghastly toll. We would find in a lesser degree the lack of preventive measures. We would find a considerable contribution from confusion over the regulations in force. We would find also that prevention of accidents is in part involved in large problems of difficult solution in the planning of our cities, the construction of highways, and generally the handling of these new traffic problems that have been thrown upon cities and country wholly unplanned for such use.[9]
Secretary Hoover called another conference for March 1926. During the interim between this and the first conference, a special committee drew up a model “Uniform Vehicle Code” covering the registration and titling of vehicles, the licensing of drivers and the operation of vehicles on the highways, which incorporated the best features of the numerous and varied State laws then on the statute books. The second conference approved this code, recommending it to the State legislatures as the basis for uniform motor vehicle legislation.[10]
- ↑ This problem was not adequately resolved until the introduction of sealed beam headlights about 20 years later.
128
- ↑ Report of The Committee On Statistics (National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 1924) pp. 7, 21, 26, 27.
- ↑ Report of The Committee On Traffic Control (National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 1924) pp. 9, 10, 14.
- ↑ Report of The Committee On Construction and Engineering (National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 1924) pp. 5-7, 12.
- ↑ Id., p. 23.
- ↑ Id., p. 15.
- ↑ Report of The Committee On Motor Vehicles (National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 1924) pp. 9, 14.
- ↑ Id., p. 12.
- ↑ Report of The First National Conference On Street and Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15–16, 1924, p. 15.
- ↑ Id., pp. 9, 10.
- ↑ Report of The Second National Conference On Street and Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., Mar. 23–25, 1926, p. 15.
