SATURDAY, OCTOBER I 6TJI, 1909.
THE AUTOCAR a Journal publtabe~ in the tntereata of the mecbantcall\? propelle~ roat, carriage.
EDITED BY H. WALTER STANEq,
o. 730. VoL. XXIII.] SATURDAY,· OCTOBER r 6TH, 1909.
[PRICE 3D.
The Autocar.
(Published Weekly).
Registered as a Newspaper for transmission in the United Kingdom. Entered as second-class matter in the New York lN.Y.) Post Office.
Three Editions every Friday.
The THREEPENNY EDITION, printed on Art Paper. The PENNY EDITION, printed upon thinner paper The FOREIGN EDITION, price 3d.1 printed on thin paper for transmission abroad.
Editorial Office :
COVENTRY.
Publishing Offices :
20, TUDOR STREET, LONDON, £.C., England.
CONTENTS. ~ OTES
A TRIAL TRIP ON THE 12-1.f. CROSSLEY
USEFUL HINTS AND TIPS ( ILLUSTRATED)
"The Autocar League" . . THE 35 H.P. FouR-CYLINDER TALBOT {ILLUSTRATED)
S)IALL CAR TALK . .
DODY D ESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (ILLUSTRATED)
MOUNTAINEERING BY MOTOR CAR
A TABULATED LIST OF GEAR RATIOS
ON THE T RACK (ILLUSTRATED)
THE 19 10 GRAND PRIX .
:\!□TOR UNION NOTES ..
THE NEW 12-16 H.P. SUNBEAM ll LLUSTRATED)
THE 8 H.P. CoL1BRI CAR l l LLL'STRATED) ..
CORRESPONDENCE (ILLUSTRATED)
AN EtGHT~CYLlNDER DE DION ENGINE (ILLUSTRATED} .
J'ERfH l\lOT0R SPEED LDIIT 1NQUIRY
FLASHES (ILLUSTRATED) .. CLUB DOINGS (ILLUSTRATED) . .
PAGE:.
581 )82
583 . . 584-587
588-,90
591 592 593-595 596-597 598-600
6oo 6or 602-604
604 609•6 13
6,4 614 t15-616 617-61S
Subscription Rates :
British Isles-Home Edition, 16s. ; penny (thin paper edition!, 6s. 6d.
Abroad (thin paper editionL 22s. Sd. per annum. 1
Index to Advertisements appears on page 36
Notes. The Road Bill. A few motorists ha1·e expressed regrets that the Road Bill did not pass through committee practically unaltered. Their regret particularly concerns the clause which was to permit the Road Board to make new roads exclusiYely for motor traffic. This lause, it will be remembered, was altered so that any ne1Y roads 1Yhich may be made or impr◊1·ed by the Road Board will be open to all traffic alike. So far a we can gather, the few which express these regret do so mainly on the grounds that upon these new road there would haYe been no speed limit. They altogether miss the reason why 11·e and others who think with us (that is, the majority of motorists) are opposed to the building of special roads for motors. Of course, we should like the speed limit to be abolished. Not because of any desire to greatly exceed it, but rather to remove a regulation which is abused by the police and magistracy in certain districts. The reason why the proposition for the construction of roads to be et apart exclusil'ely for motor traffic was opposed by motorists 1rns because almost all the more far-seeing felt that it was establishing a dangerous precedent.
Even Truer To-day than in 1905. Among the severest critics of our attitude to1rn rcls the special motor roads clauses of the Road Bill is the 1V esfllninster Gazette, and 1Ye think it desirable under the circumstances to make our position absolutely clear. We cannot do better than quote a statement which 11·e made as long ago as ~01·ember 18th, 1905. At that time we were referring to a Bill which 1ras to be laid before Parliament asking for powers to make a special motor road from London to Brighton, to be reserved solely for the use of motor car traffic. This project fel I through, but at the time it was brought up we said " We are exceedingly sorry to see thaf this project is to be pushed forward, particularly at the present time, because it will accentuate the impression which obtains to ome extent among non-motorists that automobile traffic cannot be safely conducted upon the same roads as other vehicular traffic. It is expected that this motor road, 1Yhich, it is tated, is to cost a million, 11·ill pay for itself by mean. of the tolls which motorists wi ll be charged for the privilege of dri1·ing upon it, but thi.- fact 1Yill not in any way prevent the spreading of the wrong impression which publicity to the project will bring about. Further than this, it appears to w; that on the I ines proposed the motor road ,rould be a most uninteresting track. "
The objections we set forth nearly four years ago are precisely those which led us to oppose the proposition for the construction of new road to be set apart exclusi1·ely for motor cars, as detailed in the draft of the Road Bil l. We have no.thing to acid or subtract from the vie11·s 1Ye then expre sed, which 11·e are glad to kno11· are regarded as sound by the vast majority of automobilists to-day. Our contemporary also a ks, lf there were no motor cars should we require improved, and consequently more expensi1·e, roads) Our reply to this is in the negative, but we go further and . ay that now that there are motor cars, more costly roads are not required. What is required is an up-to-elate and dustless system of road making, which has been shown to be possible without any extra expenditure worthy the name. Indeed there is no need for extra expenditure so far as motor traffic alone is concerned. Any improvements would be due to the desirability of providing for the extremely careless ,ray in which the majority of road u ers drive and ride. In consequence it is desirable that some of the most dangerous corners should either be eased or opened up and that the blind cross roads should be made safe. These comparati,·ely trifling alterations are necessary, because the majority of vehicles are dri,·en round corners on the wrong side of the road, and main roads are entered from cross roads without the drivers attempting to see what is coming.
