, speaking for the Author, referred to Table I (p. 269), and observed that it might be an advantage if the various factors . stated therein could be correlated on a scient& statistical basis, in order to ascertain whether there was any closer connexion between one factor and the accidents than between another factor and the accidents.With regard to the question of the degree of responsibility for accidents, the Author had put forward the suggestion that the cause of accident,s in nearly all cases was a combination of the human element and the environment, the environment being in most cases the road. To endeavour to put the blame on the road or the driver of the vehicle, or any single factor, was probably misleading, and might explain the difference which the Author pointed out between various interpretations of the degree of responsibility. He thought that road engineers should abandon any attempt to proportion blame and should endeavour to do their best to remove the causes of accidents, while other people devoted their attention to other aspects of the question, such as publicity, making people conscious that they were liable to accidents, and, on the legal side, prohibiting actions which were likely to cause accidents.Mr. Clayton thought that the paragraph headed '' Investigation of Degree of Danger " (p. 272) might require some clarification, and no doubt the ensuing discussion would if that were so. He would like to draw attention to the importance of not missing item (3)-the diagnosis of

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract