OCR Text |
Show Cedar City Cited by Safety Council For Activities in Traffic Problems Cedar City, according to Utah Safety Council annual Inventory of traffic safety activities, is leading the state in total activity toward accident prevention and they show a three per cent increase over the past year. Cedar City moving from second in 1955 behind Salt Lake City to first in 1956 is topping all of the 10 reporting cities of the state. Percentage of all activities In Cedar cny was 74T compared to an average of 55 in the state and also compared to a G6 per cent by Logan City, second in the state. Utah Safety Council, however, indicated that the state is far below the minimum standards and needs required to maintain an effective program of accident prevention. Effective action, it was pointed out, involves many elements, and not simply increased enforcement enforce-ment activities. They also pointed point-ed out that local organized citizens cit-izens support was the weaker factor noted. The Council emphasized that' a completely "balanced" effort is essential, and that the series of evaluations covered the lol-lowing lol-lowing elements: accident record rec-ord use, traffic engineering, police po-lice supervision, courts, school traffic safety education, public' safety education and safety orj ganization. In the nine categories reported Cedar City was above the state percentage average in every case. Biggest improvement in the comparative com-parative report was in the category cate-gory of police traffic supervision which increased In Cedar City from 28 to 81 from 1955 to 1956. Analysis reports of Cedar City compared to the state average for 1956 are as follows: Accident records. Cedar 63, state 65. Traffic engineering, Cedar 66, state 59. Police traffic supervision, Cedar Ce-dar 81, State 61. Traffic courts, Cedar 86, state S8. School traffic safety education, Cedar 70, state 64. Public safety education, Cedar 90, state 52. i Safety organization, Cedar 85, state 31. Activity repord only, Cedar 75, state 58. Total activity report, Cedar 74, state 55. Council officials, In presenting the reports to the cities, pointed out that while the traffic problem prob-lem is bad enough as it is today, to-day, it is going to become progressively pro-gressively worse if present levels of activity are not substantially increased on a state level, because be-cause of increasing population, motor vehicle registration and travel increases, and other factors. fac-tors. By 19G6, the council reported that conservative estimates for Utah indicated the following: Population, $1,020,000, 20 increase. in-crease. Registered vehicles, 480,000, 34 per cent Increase. Licensed drivers, 550,000, 25 Increase. Travel, 5.1 billion miles, 47 increase. Traffic deaths, at current rate, 336 (1956 total. 214). Economic loss from traffic accidents. ac-cidents. WWOO.OOO (1956 loss $23,000,000). The low level of activity noted not-ed Is one of the principal reasons rea-sons Utah has the current 'raffle 'raf-fle problem facing it. and represents repre-sents a challenge to the people of the state that should not be Ignored, the Council said. |