Motor-Cyclist Convicted For Not Wearing Safety Helmet

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28131, 21 November 1956, Page 10

Motor-Cyclist Convicted For Not Wearing Safety Helmet

“As the regulations are there, a duty is imposed on motor-cyclists not to travel at speeds exceeding 30 miles an hour when not wearing safety helmets,’’ said Mr L. N. Ritchie, S.M., at the conclusion of the hearing in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday of a charge against Warwick John Purdue, a shop assistant, of failing to wear a safety helmet when he was exceeding 30 miles an hour on a motor-cycle. Purdue was convicted end discharged. Mr R. A. Young, instructed by the New Zealand Auto-Cycle Union, represented the defendant. The AssistantTraffic Superintendent (Mr H. W. Birdling) appeared for the Christchurch City Councils traffic department. The charge had been adjourned from October 16. Mr Young said he admitted that his client had exceeded the speed limit, and had not been wearing a crash helmet. The regulations governing the wearing of crash helmets were originally set down tp come into force on July 1. 1955, but were later postponed to March 1, 1956, so that supplies of approved helmets could be made available. said Mr Birdling. The Minister of Transport (Mr W. S. Goosman) and the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr E. H. Halstead) had the machinery to know when there was a sufficient supply. Mr Birdling said he understood that the Commissioner of Transport (Mr H. B. Smith) had instructed Transport Department inspectors not to enforce the regulations, but persons not wearing safety helmets should keep within 30 miles an hour. The Dunedin City Council had taken several prosecutions of this kind, but this was the first in Christchurch. There were crash helmets available in Christchurch—he had purcased one himself a week ago. He felt he must press for a conviction for motor-cyclists’ own safety, and also for a penalty to act as a deterrent and promote safety on the roads, said Mr Birdling. Mr Young said that he wished to make it clear that he was not in the Cotrt to circumvent a regulation intended to protect motor-cyclists. The executive of the Auto Cycle Union and members of its affiliated clubs favoured the use of crash helmets provided the helmets were effective. In New Zealand approved helmets were available in limited numbers, and only from size 64 to size 7|. Purdue required a size 7g helmet. The Com-

missioner of Transport felt that his department could not reasonably enforce the law, said Mr Young. Thomas Richard McCleary, a merchant. and the motor-cyclists’ representative on the Road Safety said that po approved crash helmets larger than size 7§ were available. One size 7§ helmet had arrived from England on Monday, but it was a racing helmet which was considerably heavier than an ordinary one. Mr McCleary said that his organisation wanted to get motor-cyclists to wear an approved type of helmet. A motor-cyclist could come through Riccarton and only be prosecuted by the Transport Department for exceeding the speed limit; but if he came one foot into the city area he could well be prosecuted also for failing to wear a crash helmet, said the Magistrate. “This just does not make sense. If a private person or a policeman laid an information in Riccarton a motorcyclist might well be convicted.” The Court could not disallow regulations which appeared to be within the intention of Parliament because the regulations were not reasonable, said the Magistrate. Mr McCleary had shown that his organisation was not against crash helmets —indeed, it wanted an approved type to be worn. Until these were available the onus was on motor-cyclists not to exceed the speed limit. The Commissioner had “taken unto himself a power he does not possess” in ordering his department not to prosecute. Only the Minister- of Transport, by an Order-in-Council, had the power, and that course had not been taken, said the Magistrate. , He considered the case for the prosecution proved, but as it was the first he would convict and discharge. In later cases, he might convict and impose a fine, as he did not want to establish a precedent, said the Magistrate.