Yesterday the Smithsonian magazine published a note on a terrible anniversary, "On This Day in 1899, a Car Fatally Struck a Pedestrian for the First Time in American History."
 |
| via Bluesky |
It surveyed a little of the history, and cited Peter Norton's research prominently.
As the popularity of cars exploded, officials charged with keeping order in cities stood firm in their view that pedestrian safety was the responsibility of the motorist, much like it was with carriage drivers.
“Every time, the judge would say, ‘A pedestrian has no obligation to watch out for motor vehicles; it’s the motor vehicle operator’s responsibility to watch out for them,’” Norton explains. “This is Anglo-American common law tradition that says the street is a public space. Everybody’s entitled to use it, provided they don’t endanger others or unduly inconvenience others. [That] put the burden of responsibility on the driver, because the pedestrian is not endangering anyone else, but the driver is.”
Here's an example from a Salem editorial in 1914. It sides with people on foot.
 |
| July 6th, 1914 |
The piece at the Smithsonian discussed the 1920s rise of AAA, the invention of jaywalking, and the process to shift blame from drivers to other users of the road.
An early example of the shift is visible right here. Exactly 100 years ago on September 14th, the morning paper printed a piece from AAA about the menace to motorists from children bicycling. Motorists were the primary group imperiled, "often innocently involved in unfortunate fatalities," not the kids. Kids were endangering the motorists, were even the aggressors, and were to blame for being kids.
 |
| September 14th, 1924 |
From the piece:
HANDLE BAR RIDING MENACE SAYS AAA
Parents Can Assist by Prohibiting Children Riding on Handle Bars
In line with its policy of encouraging safety in motoring by attacking and removing specific causes of accidents the American Automobile Association will urge the passage of bills prohibiting children from carrying each other on the handle bars of their bicycles on public streets and highways, according to a statement sent put from Three-A headquarters in Washington by the legislative board.
The AAA sees in "handle-bar riding" a positive menace to motorists who are often innocently involved in unfortunate fatalities. According to the board's report, the percentage of accidents caused by riding the handle bars on public streets and roads is still small in comparison with the percentage of accidents from other causes, but it is pointed out that a constructive policy such as the AAA has adopted calls for elimination of minor as well as major causes.
"The average child is menace enough when bicycle riding along a crowded thoroughfare without doubling the chances of accident by allowing him to wobble all over the road with another child perched on the handle bars," the AAA statement reads. "Two children should not be allowed riding one bicycle any more than three persons should be allowed to sit in the front seat of the average automobile.
"The bicycle stunt is prevalent in localities where children have a long distance to go in reaching school. This increases the hazard because it means that many children are then occupying the streets and highways at points where the motorist is not warned to look out for children.
"The desire for quick transportation is inbred in American children. They want to ride and it is up to their parents and those who are interested in their welfare to see that they ride in safety. The American Automobile Association is, of course, primarily, interested in helping the motorist avoid inadvertent injury of children, but it feels that an appeal to parents in behalf of the safety of their children will help to accomplish results as well as definite legislation.
"Riding on behind wagons has been held in check by parental interest and legislation, and the same checks must be applied to the newer menace of uncertain bicycle riding on streets and highways where motor traffic cannot possibly adjust itself to the whims of unthinking children.
"We must have common sense in this matter, and laws to enforce cooperation where it is not voluntary. Parents can do their share by seeing that their children do not ride on the handle bars of their companions' bikes, and the states can do much to make bicycle riders conform to certain rules that will dovetail with regulations covering motor traffic.
"Bicycle riding is on the increase, and unless misuse of this form of transportation is checked at the start all traffic will have a number of new problems quickly as old ones are solved."
Earlier in the summer AAA had protested against "sensationalism" in a short note in the paper:
According to the AAA announcement certain writers are playing up automobile accidents in an effect toward sensationalism, using the term "murder" with reference to misuse of automobiles, and "slaughter" to describe fatalities on the streets and highways. It is pointed out by the automobile organization that this tends to complicate the problem, rather than solve it....
The Great Gatsby probably has the most famous example of the language they protested:
The "death car" as the newspapers called it, didn't stop; it came out of the gathering darkness, wavered tragically for a moment and then disappeared around the next bend. Michaelis wasn't even sure of its color--he told the first policeman that it was light green. The other car, the one going toward New York, came to rest a hundred yards beyond, and its driver hurried back to where Myrtle Wilson, her life violently extinguished, knelt in the road and mingled her thick, dark blood with the dust.
Here's a newspaper graphic for "the modern juggernaut," the kind of thing the AAA was protesting.
 |
| "The Modern Juggernaut" (NYT 1924, detail) |
This criticism of "sensationalism" mystifies the problem, however, and diffuses responsibility so no one is responsible! It actually works the other way, complicating the problem so drivers and driving are not responsible. That's a neat rhetorical trick, and they pulled it off.
The shift in blame is visible here over the course of 1924. It isn't exactly sudden, but you can see the change in rhetoric as AAA works out new ideas. Just a few months earlier they focused on the responsibility of drivers to be careful and not to be careless.
 |
| March 30th, 1924 |
They argued for contextual speeds, saying
just because you are not exceeding twenty miles an hour under certain conditions is no evidence that you are driving carefully. You might be speeding at ten.
They suggested drivers "refuse to carry on a conversation while driving the car."
There's quite a distance between the focus on care and caution in March and the September insistence that if "the motorist is not warned to look out for children," they are innocent. 1924 looks like a pivotal year in the cultural and political development of our autoism.
No comments:
Post a Comment