THE BITUMEN TKACK

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 26, 30 July 1927, Page 15

THE BITUMEN TKACK

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

BUS DRIVER EXONERATED

The hearing of the by-law case pi which a point at issue was whether,; a vehicle should go off the bitumen.-■'»» the Hutt road in order to prevent >any. possibility of a collision with another that is approaching in the opposite direction, and is also attempting to overtake a third, was completed before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magiatrate's Court yesterday. ''•'■■,:. The defendant was Eobert Ge3de.s, driver of one of the Eastbourne Borough Council buses, who was charged with not keeping his vehicle to thejoffc or near side of the road, or with not leaving sufficient room for another ,-vehide to pass. The charge arose out «f a collision, as the result of. which..the right-hand side of the Eastbourne;! 1 bua and one of Cottrell's buses was daraaged. Geddes, for whom Mr. E. Parry! appeared, pleaded not guilty. ; 7.; Evidence called for, the prosecution at the original hearing went to showthat the Eastbourne bus was-proceeding in the direction of Wellington, and that a motor-lorry was proceeding towards Petone. While the two vehicles were approaching, and were separated by.a' distance of about 200 yards, one ... of Cottrell's buses came out from'behind the lorry in order to overtake it. '■■• ..It was contended that the Eastbourne bias should have swerved off the bitumen to avoid an accident, and that the driver had ample time to do so. Tor the defence, several witnesses said that only 30 yards separated the lorry and the approaching Eastbourne bus, when Cottrell's bus came out from behind the lorry and made to pass -it. The driver, they stated, had no time to avoid an accident. Mr. Parry argued that, quite apatf xromthe evidence that the defendantrhad no time to avoid an accident, the summous should be dismissed upon .the ground, that the defendant had the right; of road, and was entitled to expect-Cot-trell's bus to fall back into its proper place behind the lorry. Of course, he added, it. would be defendant's duty. t<> avoid an accident by getting ofiVthe bitumen when he realised that the other bus did not intend to give way;:.bu* then it might possibly have been too late. ■ _- ... •. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said it was a question of fact which- he had to decide. Cottrell's bus having turned out to pass the lorry, had the defendant time to avoid an accident? If he was to accept the evidence for the prosecution it would mean that the defendant Had deliberately clung to the bitumen and taken the risk of a very 1 serious accident. Having .regard '-to the evidence called for the defence, he" did not feel justified in accepting.this view, and he found that in fact the. defendant had had no time in which'toi avert a collision. ■:.-.■■■ v■- ' The information was therefore^ di»i .missed. ■■ - , . :;-. ; -. ; :