USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17061, 4 February 1921, Page 3

USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

VEHICLE DRIVERS' OBLIGATIONS. In view of the many collisions which, occur by cyclists emerging on to public thoroughfares from rights-of-way, a reserved decision given by Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, has an important* bearing.' In a headnote, the Magistrate said: "Where" human, horse, and motor-driven traffic is authorised by a local by-law to use private rights-of-way adjacent to a highway, and as auxiliary to that purpose to cross a footpath, forming part of the highwaj', such, traffic must approach and! cross the footway _ at the least possible pace, and where it is possible for the rider or driver to dismount he must do so before be reaches the footpath. Failure to adopt these precautions is negligent notwithstanding the absence of statutory or other provisions to that effect." The cass in question was William Henry Ryder' (Mr Gresson) v. Henry Franois Stevens (Mr Alpcrs), a claim for £IOO in respect of damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of alleged negligent riding by defendant's servant, Russell (a messenger boy) of a push-bicycle". The accident happened opposite a right-of-way leading from Hereford street to Cashel street, plaintiff and Russell, both of whom were riding bicycles at a slow pace, colliding in front of a motor-car parked in Caslici street. The parted cars obstructed tho view of those proceeding along Oashel street, as well as thoso coming from the right-of-way. The messenger boy came from tCie right-of-way, and plaintiff was riding down Cashel street. As a result of the collision, plaintiff had; one of 'his legs broken, and he was in hospital for ten weeks, and iive months elapsed before he could l resume work. The Magistrate held that defendant was liable, and in his judgment said that had Russell dismounted and looked up and down Cashel street before he remounted, t)he accident would never have happened. Those using the footpaths were to be preserv ed from accidents resulting from street traffic using the footpath, and the riding of Russeli was negligent in that lie failed to dismount. There might be no statutory or other provisions requiring a cyclist to dismount when coming out) of a right-of-way on to a public street, but the only "significance of that was that he could not be convicted for so doing;. Judgment would be recorded YarTplaintiff. fqr. £loQ._jgjtfc easts.