From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Article from 'Country Life' magazine discussing dangerous driving laws and the pros and cons of 'Balloon' tyres.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 53\2\ Scan099 | |
| Date | 8th March 1924 | |
| COUNTRY LIFE. March 8th, 1924. what constitutes an offence in one police area does not practically do so in another. To quote a topical instance, it is only in Surrey that action is being taken against spot-lights. In other words, personal ideas and, perhaps, personal prejudice are allowed to control police action. Can it be called justice that the police should prosecute a motorist on the ground of dangerous driving in, say, Hampshire, while in Wiltshire or Dorset exactly the same behaviour passes uncensured ? As a motorist I would, naturally, like to see trials brought into line with my neighbours, but as an individual I consider I am reasonable in demanding that wherever the change takes place all counties should be brought into line. THE POLICEMAN AS JUDGE. Just as the prejudice of certain police forces is balanced by that of certain magisterial benches, so is the ignorance of some of the latter balanced by that of the former. What is there about the ordinary policeman to warrant his being a self-appointed judge of what constitutes dangerous driving ? The rural constable may be prompted by the very best and most honest motives in the world, but his motives do not endow him with any special capacity of judgment. Accustomed all his life to the farmyard horse and its yokel wagoner, that policeman will not be alarmed at the sight of a motor car travelling at a speed higher than any with which he has been familiar ? His unsupported evidence is not enough to secure a conviction against the car driver for exceeding the speed limit, but it is enough to secure a conviction for driving to the common danger. Which brings us to my last and strongest point. REQUIREMENTS OF EVIDENCE. As the law stands at present a conviction for driving to the common danger may be obtained on the evidence of a single police constable—or, for that matter, of any other individual, policeman or not. In view of the almost universal disregard paid to the evidence of the car driver and his passengers, the practical effect of this law as it stands is that anyone may note the number of a car, summons the driver for dangerous driving and be fairly certain of securing a conviction. It is not always necessary for the prosecutor to commit perjury; he may urge that in his opinion the car was being driven to the danger of people who were not actually, but who might have been, on the highway at the time (this “might have been” is important), and if the new Bill becomes law the driver will stand open to being committed to prison for three months. Unfortunately, this is no phantasy on my part, and it is mainly because the new Bill makes no effort to alter the necessary evidence before a conviction for driving to the common danger can be secured that I object to it. One cannot expect the non-motoring individual, whether in the police force or not, to make due and fitting allowance for the varying capacities of drivers. Even if he were a competent judge he could not be expected to know whether the driver he thought of stopping were one of many years’ experience under all conditions of driving or whether he were a novice out for his first or second time. The whole position is illogical and absurd. By all means let us have such laws and such penalties that will do all that laws and penalties can do towards the prevention of crime, but even more emphatically let our legislators take such steps as are necessary to prevent abuses of the law. Before the new Bill comes into force there ought to be a fresh definition of dangerous driving and a modification of the evidence at present necessary before a conviction is obtainable. Given this, and given some assurance that pleas will receive attention and not be entirely ignored in our courts, and all motorists should welcome the new measure. Failing such provisions I fear there is no hyperbole in the prophecy that the new Bill promises the severest blow against motoring both as an industry and as a pastime that it has ever received. No one will dare venture forth in a car without being willing to pay £50 and endure three months' imprisonment for the privilege. “Balloon” Tyres. NEXT to four-wheel brakes the most interesting motoring development at present in progress is undoubtedly the balloon tyre. It is forming the subject of controversy in motoring countries all over the world, and in spite of much opposition it is rapidly forcing its way to the front. With the disputed credit for the origination of the tyres we are not now concerned, for this in itself is quite controversial—no sooner did the first sets suggest that they might be of real value than some critic came forward pointing out that they were not new at all, etc., etc., in the ordinary way as for all inventions of note. But because there seems to be much to be said both in their favour and against them it may be useful to review briefly these main points, from which readers may form some useful opinions. The tyres, then, are variously known as “Balloon,” “Comfort” or “ Low Pressure” tyres, and their essential difference from the ordinary pneumatic is a much greater cross sectional area in proportion to the overall diameter together with a much lower inflation pressure. Their natural effect on a car to which they are fitted is, of course, to increase very much its riding comfort, as inevitably follows from an increase in tyre size. But in the case of balloon tyres this effect is increased by the very low inflation pressures, the figures recommended for some makes and sizes being as low as 15lb. per square inch as compared with the 55lb. or so that would be used with normal tyres of the same overall diameter. Thus the flexibility of the tyres is doubly increased by comparison with that of ordinary tyres, first by their greater size and second by their lower pressures. MR. H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} T. VANE, O.B.E., WITH HIS BALLOON-TYRE EQUIPPED NAPIER. THE PROS. There is no questioning the fact that the chief claim made in favour of the tyres is a sound one. Their added comfort is, indeed, but a further development of an accepted fact that the larger a tyre the more comfortable the vehicle to which it be fitted. Next comes an improved road adhesion which militates against the risk of skidding on greasy surfaces, and, finally, there is the somewhat questionable asset of exceptional ease of attachment and detachment. Perhaps this last is not an unmitigated blessing, for a tyre that is too easy to put on may be as easy to remove that it will be liable to come off of its own accord at undesired moments, and this is, indeed, one of the criticisms urged against the tyres by their plentiful opponents. UNPREJUDICED OPINIONS. In support of these arguments in favour of the tyre may be urged, apart from the evidence of the makers, on which little stress needs to be laid, the experiences of unprejudiced but capable observers such as Captain W. O.{Mr Oldham} Bentley, the designer of the very fine car that bears his name, and Mr. H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} T. Vane, the managing director of Messrs. Napier Motors, Ltd. Both these gentlemen have subjected balloon tyres to careful tests on their respective cars, and as the Napier and the Bentley represent two extremes of car design the results of these tests are most useful. In both cases the verdict given is entirely in favour of the tyres, though neither of these two gentlemen has yet experienced a burst tyre at speed— or under any other conditions for that matter—and so whether the effects of such a catastrophe would be more than normally unpleasant is still unknown. It may, however, be indicated in this connection that when the giant pneumatic tyres for heavy vehicles were coming into favour a few years ago one of the objections urged against their application to such vehicles as the London ’buses was that the collapse of a tyre would give the vehicle a very dangerous list. The parallel between these giant pneumatics for heavy vehicles and balloon tyres on private cars is not a perfect one, for the giant tyres were inflated to very high pressure and also there would be little risk of their leaving the rim entirely, but so far as it goes the parallel is illuminating. Both Napier and Bentley experiences have emphasised the improved road adhesion of the tyres, with a consequent diminution of skidding risks and an increase in braking effect, this latter being strikingly brought out in some Bentley tests conducted scientifically to determine it with precision. The riding of the cars over bad roads has been very much improved, and in the case of Captain Bentley’s car, which had already a very high mileage to its credit, minor body squeaks and rattles were eliminated by the tyres. Both our correspondents dwell on the importance and value of the tyres in insulating chassis as well as car occupants from road shocks, which would mean an increased chassis life, and though such a consideration would hardly arise in connection with such cars as the Napier and Bentley, one may assume that such minor troubles as arise with many cars and may be traced in their origins to vibration would be very much reduced. Before proceeding to the “ cons” of the tyres we would indicate that both Mr. Vane and Captain Bentley omit one interesting point from their reports. Neither of them says anything about the roll of the car when these tyres are fitted. If the reason for the omission is that there is no roll to record, all well and good, but a definite assurance on the point would be useful. There is, however, this much to be said, and it is important. Whereas balloon tyres may not create a roll on cars where there is previously no tendency in this direction, it does not follow that if the tendency were already present it would not be increased by the tyres. Their success in this direction would appear to parallel that of an anti-skidding device recently criticised in these pages. It would depend largely on the character of the springing of the car. If this were | ||