“Hot Rods”
Sir, —In the recent “test case” where the owner of a “hot rod” was prosecuted for operating a dangerous vehicle, was the prosecution undefended as appeared from the news report? If so, is it normal or good practice to make an undefended case a test one? Does the department realise the grounds on which the “hot rod” was declared dangerous may be applied in part to many vehicles, including its own motor-cycles, the odd car in the process of body repair, and, word for word, to the agricultural tractor? Is the department going to prosecute the operators of all these vehicles? Or is the department going to continue to prosecute only on the grounds of what might happen in an accident?—Yours, etc., E. E. STEVENS. August 16, 1963. [The Traffic Superintendent of the Ohristch-urch City Council (Mr J. F. Thomas) said: “My department considered the design of this vehicle, by way of structural alterations, was such that the severity of injury would be greatly increased should the vehicle be involved in a collision with a pedestrian. Under the appropriate regulation it is an offence to operate a vehicle in such a condition as to cause or be liable to cause injury to any person or animal.”]
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19630822.2.8.1
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume CII, Issue 30216, 22 August 1963, Page 3
Word Count
208“Hot Rods” Press, Volume CII, Issue 30216, 22 August 1963, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in