MOTORISTS AT CROSSINGS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 152, 29 June 1926, Page 10

MOTORISTS AT CROSSINGS.

THE DUTY TO STOP. (By Telegraph. —Own Correspondent.) WHANGAREI, this day. Several motorists were before Mr. F. H. Levien. S.M., at the Whangarei Magistrate's Court, being proceeded against by the Railway Department (Mr. F. C."Gould). The charges in each case were identical, namely, failure to stop when crossing the railway at level crossings when the line was not clear.

Fred Hill (Mr. Harrison) pleaded guilty to crossing W 7 altou Street crossing "on May 7. Counsel-stressed that the signal given :by the .crossing, keeper,, of .-waving a green, flag when, a train was approaching, .was misleading-. Defendant was fined £3. and; costs £2 19/, another charge -being withdrawn. .- : - -

C. Dysart (Mr.- Harrison) pleaded guilty to a similar charge at Hikurangi level crossing. In this case a collision occurred, but the damage j was slight. The defence" w-as *'tha£';. he." .ifid not hear the whistle." : He was'finM ''£3, costs £3 .61. '

Gilbert H. Wharfe pleaded guilty to a similar charge in respect of the Water Street crossing on April 8, it being stated that grease on his•" brakes ."prevented them from holding, and only'aiternative was to cross the line to escape a collision. He was fined £3-, costs £2 18/. . -

T. C. Holley pleaded guilty to a similar charge in regard to the" Walton Street crossing on April 24, alleging that he was too close to the line to stop when the crossing keeper gave the signal. He was fined £3. costs £3 11/. A- Defended Case. ' • v Frederick Voice (Mr. Bannister) pleaded not guilty to a charge of failing to stop- when crossing Water JStreet level crossing on May. 5. In' this, case the defence was that a "motor van driven by defendant came to a stop 12 feet from a blind crossing; where a keeper- was on duty. On restarting, the ikeeper waved a green flag, but did not show a red flag or semaphore, and as this was taken to indicate safetVj the defendant crossed, the train passing immediately afterwards. The magistrate remarked that, in spite of any alleged failure of the safeguards provided, the onus on those crossing the railway was to stop and satisfy themselves that the iine was clear. This was not usually done. The system of signalling wate andNSnould Be stereotyped. Defendant "was fined fl, costs £2 16/.