BACK PAGES:THE SPEED limit for cars in Dublin was exercising city councillors in 1911. They set up an inquiry to reduce it from 20mph to 10mph, a reduction that was strongly opposed by the growing motoring lobby.
Traffic at the time was still dominated by horse-drawn vehicles; of the 17,000-odd vehicles that crossed O’Connell Bridge between 8am and 8pm on one day in April that year 5,974 were horse-drawn, 2,700 were tramcars, 826 were bicycles, 533 were motor cars and 93 were motorcycles. In the previous eight years (from 1903 to 1910) 86 people had been killed by horses or horse-drawn vehicles, 19 by trams, 13 by motor vehicles and three by bicycles, the inquiry was told.
Among the participants was the Automobile Association which had 725 members in Ireland and 30,000 worldwide. Its barrister, a Mr Battersby KC, claimed that the corporation’s case for a reduction had utterly broken down. He went on, according to the report in this day’s newspaper: “. . . if they believed that a single accident was to be saved by the proposed restriction of the speed of motor cars in the city they would at once concur in passing a self-denying ordinance to that effect.
“After hearing the case of the corporation it was perfectly clear that there was not evidence of any danger peculiar to the streets of Dublin, necessitating any such restriction as that proposed . . . The percentage of motor car accidents in Dublin compared favourably with those arising from horse-drawn vehicles. That was what might have been expected, for the drivers of motor cars were either educated gentlemen or highly-trained chauffeurs, with respectable positions, dependent upon their skill and care in driving, and with many lives and valuable cars under their control. The punishment meted out to offenders as the result of reckless driving was incomparably more stringent and severe than that which was inflicted upon the drivers of horses. The Motor Car Act of 1903 raised the limit of speed to 20 miles an hour, and anybody exceeding that speed was liable to fines of £10, £20, and £50, or he may have to suffer three months in jail. Yet the corporation did not consider this a sufficient deterrent of reckless driving, which they alleged was rampant. But not merely was there no evidence of recklessness on the part of motorists, but the applicants had failed to show that there was any inherent danger in the streets themselves.
“On that point hinged the whole inquiry, for unless there was some inherent danger, the Local Government Board must rest satisfied with the provisions of the Motor Car Act, and could not impose a stringent speed limit in the city.”
He suspected that the motive of the corporation was to be found either in the title of the “Anti-Taxicab Association,” or in the complaint of its president, Mr Kelly, as to the “swanking” of motorists.
By that recently-imported expression, Mr Kelly referred to the nonchalant attitude of the motorist, who, reclining in contemplative ease, with nose uplifted to the sky, in blissful ignorance of the effects he produced, possibly gave the impression that he regarded the multitude with contemptuous indifference, while, at the same time he might be the most benevolent of mortals, owing his undeserved reputation to the luxurious ideas of his car designer.