FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1910
1910 - 0568.PDF
I/uffl JULY 23, 1910. CHRONIC(LB) COUNSELS OF MOST of our readers are graduates from motoring, and they are therefore fully posted in the history of the Press attitude in the early days towards the motor car. And it is as well, in the light of what seems to be happening at the present juncture in the case of aeroplane accidents, to review briefly the story. When the motor vehicle first appeared on English roads, the newspaper attitude— assisted by the fanatic, the professionally non-progressive, and those whose business interests were adversely affected —was one of open scorn and derision. The very last thing the daily Press, with a few notable exceptions, thought of doing was to regard the new vehicle seriously, or to admit that it might have a future bearing on the life of the community. It was but natural, we being a conservative people, that when the car developed to a point at which it became certain that it was here to stay, the voice ot the opponent of progress should be heard in the land. At once the columns of the Press were thrown open to a discussion of the pros and cons of the new locomotion, and, as must be always so when a movement is young, the cons were in overwhelming majority. Every accident in which a motor vehicle was concerned was reported with flaring, sensational headlines, and the maximum amount of sensation that could be extracted from the story—even with the aid of palpable exaggeration, was served up for the delectation of the public until all concerned really began to persuade themselves that the motor car was a species of mechanical freak gone mad and looking for a chance to run amok. In opening its columns to painfully silly effusions, the Press showed a want of sense of proportion which we sincerely trust will not be repeated at all generally during the infancy of aviation. There have been accidents—fatal accidents—to aviators and there will be more before the tale is complete. There can be no progress without sacrifice of some kind and in most progress the toll exacted is that of human life. The railway, the steamship, and even the surgery for that matter, have all developed along a path strewn with the lives of those who have sacrificed them selves in the cause of the advancement of the world's knowledge and in every case the sacrifice has been made to the accompaniment of the protests of some who would shirk the payment of the price of all that means progress. Is it that we are growing less virile as a race that we hear so much of the price we pay and so little of what we obtain for it; or is it simply that it is the mawkish and the misinformed who chiefly have time and inclination to make themselves heard the while the workers are toiling along the road that leads to mundane knowledge ? We (prefer to think the latter and with that more or less com forting reflection we can rest content that things will still continue to progress in spite of the periodical protests of those who stand without, only too often endeavouring to cover their moral cowardice with a cloak of superiority by croaking over the materialism of an essentially material world, or by the adoption of some other equally inapplicable pretext of a like subtle kind. "Is it Worth While ?" ; " Suicide Shows " ; "Against Science, Sport and Nature "; " The Peace of the Skies Invaded" ; are among the headings that have figured largely in one of the extremist London daily papers during the past week. No one regrets the unfortunate incidents that have given opportunity for the use of these " scare-heads" more than we ourselves, and admittedly it behoves everyone to consider whether ways and means cannot be devised whereby to reduce the risks involved by those plucky pioneers who know no fear for themselves, and who are perhaps prone to be carried away at times by over-enthusiasm in the interests of progress. But when it comes to the stay-at-homes, who know nothing of the prospects of flight, going so far as to laugh at all practical mechanical achievement, and virtually insulting those who are doing their best to maintain the prestige of their own land, then surely it is time to protest against the deliberate prostitution of a public newspaper to the cultivation and circulation of such cant and ignorance. Not a few of the more rabid letter- writers against aviation—those of the type who are always to be found, with their laments about " a new evil come into the world," snapping around the heels of men ot action whenever development in any new direction is taking place—cannot apparently stop first to make sure of their ground before commencing to diffuse their doctrines of decadence and counsels of cowardice; for they start on the assumption of absolute knowledge as to the futility of flying machines for all time to come. The curious thing is, perhaps, that they now admit the value to humanity of the railway train and " even of the motor car"; while they utterly fail to realise that it was they themselves, or their immediate forefathers with identical propensities, who preached successively and with equal confidence against the country-defiling train and more lately still against the juggernaut car. Our quarrel is not, however, against this type of fellow creature, inas much as we fully recognise his inability to be or to do anything else. Our protest is against the exploitation of his fanaticism to stir up popular opposition to one of the most promising material developments that the world has ever seen, and thus to handicap this country more heavily just at a time when there is already a risk of being left behind in the great and healthy struggle for industrial status with the other nations of the world. Apart from this regrettable Daily Chronicle outburst, we would take this timely opportunity of calling atten tion to the way in which aeroplane accidents are apt to be reported in the Press, because we cannotl help thinking that the sense of proportion is wanting in the way stress is often laid upon these accidents of the air and every detail served up in attractive (?) form for the benefit of the man in the train. In the past the Press has shown much goodwill towards the new science, and if there is a disposition to err on the side of giving undue prominence to the things that were better ignored or at least made little of, we are certain that arises from no widespread want of appreciation of the potentialities of flight or enmity to the movement. All the same, it is doing it a disservice to emphasise the untoward. As a matter of fact, the record of the aeroplane stands for all men to witness that, in proportion to the thousands of flights made, the percentage of accidents has been singularly low and flying has proved itself to be one of the safest of sports. It is safer than mountaineering or steeplechasing ; quite as safe as professional football or hunting, and very little behind a good many more sports in point of safety. Putting aside the question of sport, in the cause of which we would not sacrifice a single life or limb unless there was some real and tangible gain to be foreseen for man kind as the outcome, flight—even though it be simply a sport at the present time—is destined to have a beneficial influence on international relations greater than it is almost possible to conceive. A great responsibility therefore rests with any who put unnecessary hindrances in the way. 566
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
