- Email: [email protected]
THE CARNAGE ON THE ROADS
730
Letters
to
THE CARNAGE ON THE ROADS
SiR.,-Surely it is time that someone pointed out that widely perpetuated, longest neglected, most easily explained, and least considered anomaly of all. It is to do with night driving. It is simply that all the lights on a vehicle point the wrong way. most
The sidelights of a car are direct descendants of the candle in a glass box. No-one has ever reconsidered their function. They are too feeble to illuminate the road in front, but their direct rays are quite bright enough to dazzle the oncoming motorist. By official circles they are happily supposed to indicate the position of a vehicle to which they are attached. The headlights are the boon conferred by electricity and optics upon the dazzled motorist to shatter the wall of darkness advancing behind his opponent’s sidelights. They work well until the opponent switches on his headlights. A pair of approaching motorists have the choice of dazzling each other with equally bright lights or with equally feeble lights. Whichever they choose, the equipment, so disposed as always to send a direct ray into the other man’s eyes, is perfectly arranged to dazzle. Behind and around the dazzling source of light is that advancing wall of darkness. In a sensible world all the lamps would be pointed differently-almost any way would be better than the way we have them at present. The sidelamps would be twisted round to point backwards to illuminate the wings and radiator. Then the bewildered pedestrian would at last cease worrying as to whether the two lights he sees are far apart and a long way away or near together and close to, and whether their progressive separation
signifies high-speed approach
or
merely
or to spread the myth that there are separate classes of road-users, each condemned to wage bloody or verbal war on the others. Drivers are also pedestrians and so are their children, while many have been cyclists and motor-cyclists. Most pedestrians and cyclists would like to drive a car and some will later do so. All should consider the problems of their fellow road-users, because they are also their own problems ; but all at times fail. No doubt the duty of showing consideration falls most heavily upon the driver, but it is hardly correct to accuse motorists or the "motoring interests " of carrying out an anti-safety campaign. Accidents are certainly not beneficial to drivers. In his interesting article (Feb. 25), Dr. Learoyd rightly emphasises the number of children killed and the importance of educating children and parents in road safety, but characterises the driver as " the person who does the killing " and recommends strict training of drivers. This is perhaps an over-simplification, for it takes no account of the wider social and economic causes of road accidents ; for instance, if towns were better’planned, housing less inadequate, and housewives less hard-pressed, there would be few young children unattended on busy streets. Dr. Learoyd blames the A.A. and the R.A.C. for opposing the present driving test as being of very doubtful practical utility, but devotes much space to criticising it, by implication, for the same reason. A comprehensive course of instruction, with searching examinations and psyohological tests, such as he advocates for motorists and motor-cyclists, may, in principle, be the ideal requirement for many sections of the community who in one way or another are responsible for the safety of others. The difficulties in each case are economic and administrative. Moreover, irrevocable disqualification from driving on psychological or medical grounds would have to be subject to appeal to the courts, whose present attitude towards psychologists’ evidence makes it unlikely that they would readily uphold the doctrine of accident-proneness," true though we may believe it to be. It appears that, for the present, education of the public must continue to be the main weapon against road accidents. Is the road-safety campaign gathering momentum as rapidly as it should1 How many of your readers, for instance, are constantly aware of it as a helpful influence in their multiple roles as parents, pedestrians, motorists, and so on ? Finally, can the medical profession do more to help, by providing material for education through those " instructed asides " to which Dr. Learoyd refers, by establishing more firmly the objective criteria of fitness to drive, and in other ways ‘
motorist,
the Editor
two
cyclists.
He would for the first time be able to recognise a car at night as he recognises it by day, by seeing it, and thereby be able to judge where it is and what it is doing. The rear light would be directed forwards to flood the back of the car. It could be any colour to taste, red if you wish, so long as it serves to reveal a car and not a red disc devoid of almost any property by which its distance away might be judged. The near-side headlight in the dipped position would be screened so as to be invisible to the oncoming motorist (by means of a " venetian blind " mask or by being set back behind and below the bonnet), and the offside headlight would point sideways to the right, so as to illuminate, for the benefit of the other fellow, the area behind the wall of darkness. (He would do the same for you.) In the undipped position anything you like can be switched on. Anything else revolutionary Oh yes. The interior light may be left on for choice-a bus is one of the easiest vehicles to miss. The rules throughout are, " no rays from a lamp should ever fall on a driver’s eyes " and " we see things by the light they reflect." The elements of illumination are just being appreciated by the folk who floodlight their
buildings.
Of course not. Could this possibly be achieved It requires us to do something for the other fellow, and this is a characteristic foreign to our nature. Also the neat symmetrical appearance of our cars would be upset ; the bodywork designers would have to make serious alterations ; and no-one with a dollar to spend would buy such a crazy car. Otherwise I would have patented the system long ago. SURGEON. .
SiR,-It is to be hoped that many doctors will agree with Dr. Clausen (April 1) that the prevention of road accidents is worthy of the interest of the medical profession. It would, however, be unfortunate if THE LANCET were to encourage indiscriminate denunciation of the
"
’
’
C. D. L. LYCETT.
London, S.E.26.
HYPERTENSION
SIR,-Recent views and practice in the treatment of were summarised in your leading article of March 25. For many years I have been accustomed to prescribe for these patients an empirical remedy which is successful in a fair proportion of cases. It is simple enough, consisting of 10 minims of dilute hydrochloric acid given four times daily, between meals. After three weeks, in the successful case, the systolic pressure will be found to have dropped appreciably, and often also the diastolic. The patient is usually well aware of the change and reverts to the acid whenever he feels that the pressure is rising. Work on experimental nephrosclerosis by Selye, Hall, and Rowley1 has given a rational explanation of the benefit derived from this medication. Groups of rats, unilaterally nephrectomised, treated with adrenal-cortex
hypertension
1.
Selye, H., Hall, O., Rowley, E. M.
Lancet, 1945, i, 301.
,
Letters
to
THE CARNAGE ON THE ROADS
SiR.,-Surely it is time that someone pointed out that widely perpetuated, longest neglected, most easily explained, and least considered anomaly of all. It is to do with night driving. It is simply that all the lights on a vehicle point the wrong way. most
The sidelights of a car are direct descendants of the candle in a glass box. No-one has ever reconsidered their function. They are too feeble to illuminate the road in front, but their direct rays are quite bright enough to dazzle the oncoming motorist. By official circles they are happily supposed to indicate the position of a vehicle to which they are attached. The headlights are the boon conferred by electricity and optics upon the dazzled motorist to shatter the wall of darkness advancing behind his opponent’s sidelights. They work well until the opponent switches on his headlights. A pair of approaching motorists have the choice of dazzling each other with equally bright lights or with equally feeble lights. Whichever they choose, the equipment, so disposed as always to send a direct ray into the other man’s eyes, is perfectly arranged to dazzle. Behind and around the dazzling source of light is that advancing wall of darkness. In a sensible world all the lamps would be pointed differently-almost any way would be better than the way we have them at present. The sidelamps would be twisted round to point backwards to illuminate the wings and radiator. Then the bewildered pedestrian would at last cease worrying as to whether the two lights he sees are far apart and a long way away or near together and close to, and whether their progressive separation
signifies high-speed approach
or
merely
or to spread the myth that there are separate classes of road-users, each condemned to wage bloody or verbal war on the others. Drivers are also pedestrians and so are their children, while many have been cyclists and motor-cyclists. Most pedestrians and cyclists would like to drive a car and some will later do so. All should consider the problems of their fellow road-users, because they are also their own problems ; but all at times fail. No doubt the duty of showing consideration falls most heavily upon the driver, but it is hardly correct to accuse motorists or the "motoring interests " of carrying out an anti-safety campaign. Accidents are certainly not beneficial to drivers. In his interesting article (Feb. 25), Dr. Learoyd rightly emphasises the number of children killed and the importance of educating children and parents in road safety, but characterises the driver as " the person who does the killing " and recommends strict training of drivers. This is perhaps an over-simplification, for it takes no account of the wider social and economic causes of road accidents ; for instance, if towns were better’planned, housing less inadequate, and housewives less hard-pressed, there would be few young children unattended on busy streets. Dr. Learoyd blames the A.A. and the R.A.C. for opposing the present driving test as being of very doubtful practical utility, but devotes much space to criticising it, by implication, for the same reason. A comprehensive course of instruction, with searching examinations and psyohological tests, such as he advocates for motorists and motor-cyclists, may, in principle, be the ideal requirement for many sections of the community who in one way or another are responsible for the safety of others. The difficulties in each case are economic and administrative. Moreover, irrevocable disqualification from driving on psychological or medical grounds would have to be subject to appeal to the courts, whose present attitude towards psychologists’ evidence makes it unlikely that they would readily uphold the doctrine of accident-proneness," true though we may believe it to be. It appears that, for the present, education of the public must continue to be the main weapon against road accidents. Is the road-safety campaign gathering momentum as rapidly as it should1 How many of your readers, for instance, are constantly aware of it as a helpful influence in their multiple roles as parents, pedestrians, motorists, and so on ? Finally, can the medical profession do more to help, by providing material for education through those " instructed asides " to which Dr. Learoyd refers, by establishing more firmly the objective criteria of fitness to drive, and in other ways ‘
motorist,
the Editor
two
cyclists.
He would for the first time be able to recognise a car at night as he recognises it by day, by seeing it, and thereby be able to judge where it is and what it is doing. The rear light would be directed forwards to flood the back of the car. It could be any colour to taste, red if you wish, so long as it serves to reveal a car and not a red disc devoid of almost any property by which its distance away might be judged. The near-side headlight in the dipped position would be screened so as to be invisible to the oncoming motorist (by means of a " venetian blind " mask or by being set back behind and below the bonnet), and the offside headlight would point sideways to the right, so as to illuminate, for the benefit of the other fellow, the area behind the wall of darkness. (He would do the same for you.) In the undipped position anything you like can be switched on. Anything else revolutionary Oh yes. The interior light may be left on for choice-a bus is one of the easiest vehicles to miss. The rules throughout are, " no rays from a lamp should ever fall on a driver’s eyes " and " we see things by the light they reflect." The elements of illumination are just being appreciated by the folk who floodlight their
buildings.
Of course not. Could this possibly be achieved It requires us to do something for the other fellow, and this is a characteristic foreign to our nature. Also the neat symmetrical appearance of our cars would be upset ; the bodywork designers would have to make serious alterations ; and no-one with a dollar to spend would buy such a crazy car. Otherwise I would have patented the system long ago. SURGEON. .
SiR,-It is to be hoped that many doctors will agree with Dr. Clausen (April 1) that the prevention of road accidents is worthy of the interest of the medical profession. It would, however, be unfortunate if THE LANCET were to encourage indiscriminate denunciation of the
"
’
’
C. D. L. LYCETT.
London, S.E.26.
HYPERTENSION
SIR,-Recent views and practice in the treatment of were summarised in your leading article of March 25. For many years I have been accustomed to prescribe for these patients an empirical remedy which is successful in a fair proportion of cases. It is simple enough, consisting of 10 minims of dilute hydrochloric acid given four times daily, between meals. After three weeks, in the successful case, the systolic pressure will be found to have dropped appreciably, and often also the diastolic. The patient is usually well aware of the change and reverts to the acid whenever he feels that the pressure is rising. Work on experimental nephrosclerosis by Selye, Hall, and Rowley1 has given a rational explanation of the benefit derived from this medication. Groups of rats, unilaterally nephrectomised, treated with adrenal-cortex
hypertension
1.
Selye, H., Hall, O., Rowley, E. M.
Lancet, 1945, i, 301.
,