MOTORIST'S DUTY

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 25, 29 July 1939, Page 10

MOTORIST'S DUTY

SUN, LIGHTS, OR FOG

REDUCTION OF SPEED

DAZZLING NO EXCUSE

The duty of a motorist to reduce speed and exercise the greatest care in keeping as close as practicable to his correct side of the road when blinded by natural phenomena, such as sun and fog, or dazzled by the lights of another car, is discussed in a Court of Appeal judgment delivered today by Mr. Justice Blair. His Honour held that adherence to normal speed in such circumstances must be counted as negligence, and blinding, whether sudden or not, could not be put forward as an excuse for accidents.

"I entirely reject the proposition that the fact that the cyclist could not see where he was' going because blinded by the sun afforded any excuse for him to proceed, except with extreme caution both as to pace and! position on the road," said his Honour "I can see no difference in principle between the case of a motorist blinded by the «■ in or blinded by fog. Both are the result of natural phenomena. If a motorist with visibility reduced by fog were to proceed at a normal speed or at any other place on the road than well on to his proper side it could not be questioned that such would be negligent driving. "I cannot think that limitations of visibility caused by natura* phenomena., unless such phenomena occur with suddenness, should afford any excuse for proceeding at normal speed. When visibility is impaired from any cause an ordinary prudent motorist at once slackens speed and moves well on! to bis proper side. The regulations! provide that speed must be so j regulated as to permit of stopping within half the distance of clear voad ahead.. BLINDING LIGHTS. "We commonly meet in motor cases the suggestion that one car driver has been blinded-by the dazzling lights of another approaching car. Such a thing sometimes happens suddenly, but, whether sudden or not. no Judge, so j far as I know, has ever held such a iazzlinp" to be any excuse to proceed Ht normal speed, and possibly run over..' <say. a pedestrian who wouM have been 1 visible in tir * to avoid the accident but for' the blindness caused by dazzling. "The duty of a driver of a vehicle if blinded from any cause is either to stop or proceed with extreme caution. A driver driving into the sun cannot but be aware of the fact, and it be- [ jhoves him to drive with special cau-! (tion accordingly.

"It would be highly dangeroi* to sanctify by a judgment any doctrine which would justify a motorist proceeding at ordinary pace when dazzled by the sun. Not only can I not assent to that, but I go further and say that in my view if a motorist does such a thing it would be evident r"f ««oMgence on his part."