PILLION-RIDING.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18348, 3 April 1925, Page 4

PILLION-RIDING.

PORTION OF TIMARU BY-LAW UPSET. MAGISTRATE'S UNUSUAL RIDE. (special to "thb nus.") TIMARU, April 2. Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day upset a portion cf another of the Titnaru Borough Council's; by-laws, that relating to pillion-riding, when lie declared that the by-law, in so far as it prohibited pillion-riding on. a motor-cycle where there was a side-car attached, was unreasonable.

William K. Boys, of Tcmuka, was the defendant in the case, being charged with carrying a passenger en the rear of his motor-cycle. Mr AV. D, Campbell appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr L. E. Finch, who appeared for the Borough Council, stated that the Council did not consider it unreasonable if the motor-cycle had a side-ear and pillion scat, but if there was no pillion seat and only a side-car, then it was not safe. They did not desire the' bylaw upset completely, for if that was so, then motorists would carry passengers solo. Mr Campbell admitted the facts, but asked the Court to hold that a vehicle) with a side-car and pillion seat was a safe vehicle. The by-law was an absolute prohibition of all pillion-rid-ing. Defendant was a resident of Tcmuka, and there was no prohibition of such practice in that town or immediate districts. He intended to call a volume of evidence to show that, such practice was safe. It was really a motor-car for the small family. He would bo satisfied if the Court would hold travelling on a pillion scat when a side-car was attached to the cycle as reasonable.

At this stage his "Worship tested the seat, riding pillion fashion round a. block of streets.

James Palliser, who had twelve years' experience with motor-cycles, said that a pillion seat would not affect the cycle in any way, but helped to hold the cycle to the road. He had travelled many hundreds of miles in that fashion, and considered it quite safe. His "Worship did not.agree with this view, stating that in the short ride he had had ho considered his position unsafe.

Evidence was given by Ralph Eodgers, John Brehaut, and Henry Harris, motor-cycle dealers, and by John MeKim, motor-engineer to the Timaru Borough Council, who stated that pillion riding on a motor-cycle without a side-car was dangerous under certain conditions, but he would not object to a pillion seat when a side-car was attached, provided the seat was properly constructed.

His Worship said ho was faced with a difficulty, but he was satisfied that a motor-cycle with a side-car and a properly constructed pillion could not be objected to. He was satisfied, further, that the, pillion on defendant's cycle was dangerous to a young child, and was dangerous to a heavy person. On the other hand, it might be safe for a boy who was holding on. If the seat was an examplo of tho ability of engineers in England, then it was a poor best. "Where there was no support and no foot-rest, there was no properlyconstructed scat. Although the bylaw was perhaps moro comprehensive than was necessary, he was not prepared to say that it was unreasonable. If he held that it was within the law to ride on a pillion when there was a sidecar, it left the matter open to riding on any pillion. His "Worship held that the by-law in so far as it condemned pillion riding where there was a sidecar attached, waa unreasonable, and therefore ultra vires.

The charge against the defendant was dismissed.