“UTTERLY ABSURD”

Evening Star, Issue 19346, 4 September 1926, Page 11

“UTTERLY ABSURD”

TRAFFIS RULE ATTACHES Tbo by-law ordering drivers of vehicles to give way to traffic on the right was attacked by Mr Hanlon m the Police Court yesterday morning. Douglas Henderson Hastings (Mr 1 Hanlon) was charged with, while driving a motor car, failing at an intersection to give the right of way to a vehicle on tho right. I Tho case arose from a collision at I tho intersection of Macandrcw road and King Edward street. Evidence was given by Sergeant Murray and by Frederick Henry Irwin, tho driver of the motor truck which defendant ran into. Mention was made of a tram, which, crossing the intersection one way or tho other, was said to have obstructed defendant’s view. Mr Hanlon said that, technically, defendant had broken tho by-daw. Tho ; rule was utterly absurd in a place j where tbo left-hand side was tho cor- ! rect one. The thing was utterly ridiculous if it was applied to the four corners of an intersection at one time, for all traffic would have to stop. Way should be given to traffic comTFig from tbo left, and then there would bq no difficulty. Defendant had not driven negligently. He did not give way because ho did not see the other vehicle. The Magistrate (Mr Bundle) : Tho only point is that the tram going into town stops some little distance away from tho intersection. The driver should have had a clear view of tho lorry. Mr Hanlon; Ho could not see it. His Worship: Then why could he not if the tram was coming into town? Mr Hanlon pointed out that the sergeant saw no tram coming in. As a matter of fact there was no tram coming in. It was merely tho coinage of Irwin’s own brain. The Magistrate said that Mr Hanlon had attacked tho present rule. That was a matter for the traffic authorities, and it was quite proper that some bylaw should exist. There did not seem to have been any great negligence; but defendant did not exercise extreme care, for had ho done so ho roust have seen the lorry. Ho would treat it as a ease of a nominal broach of the by-law. i Defendant would be fined witness’s cxI ponses (10s), with court casts (9s).