FATAL COLLISION

Evening Star, Issue 21569, 15 November 1933, Page 12

FATAL COLLISION

MOTOR CYCLIST KILLED CORONER EXONERATES VAN DRIVER A verdict that death was due to injuries received from the accidental collision of a motor van and a motor cycle at the corner of Tainui road and Musselburgh Rise was returned by the coroner (Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.), at the inquest this morning into the death of Douglas Norman Napier, who was fatally injured in an accident on October 22. in returning this verdict, the coroner exonerated the driver of the mm from blame, Chief-detective Young conducted the inquiry. Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the driver of the van, Mi’ J. P, Ward for the relatives of the deceased, and Mr T. A. Kinmont for the deceased’s employers. Alfred Hay, manager of Quality Bottled Milk Ltd., slated that the deceased was employed by his firm as a lorry driver. Witness last saw him alive at mid-day on the day of the accident, when he got on to his cycle at a garage near the firm’s factory and left, for his home. To Mr Ward; The deceased,was an experienced and careful motor driver. Basil Joseph George Clement, hardware assistant, said that he was walking along the left footpath of Musselburgh. Rise at about 12.10 p.m. on October «J2. When he looked back to see if a corporation bus was coming he saw a .motor cyclist on Musselburgh Rise travelling towards Anderson’s Bay at about twenty-five miles per hour. He was then about 200yds away from witness. At the same time (fitness saw a motor truck being driven along Ravelsion, street towards the rise. It was about the same distance from him as tho cyclist, and travelling about the same speed, He took no further notice of the two vehicles, and after walking on for about fifteen paces heard a crash. On looking round he saw that they had collided almost opposite him. He did not see, the actual impact, but noticed that the cycle was on tho left front wheel of the truck, and the roar wheel was. nearer the truck than the front wheel. Ho did not see, where the rider of the cycle had gone. The truck was then swerving to the left, and as it was coming in witness’s direction and to where he was standing ho got out of the way. The truck eventually stopped when it came into contact with a hedge on the footpath, it was dragging the cycle under it. Witness then saw tho cyclist lying on the road. To Sir Ward: Both parties would have had s a clear view of each other. He did not.hear a horn blow. 'When the crash took place the motorist was right over on the wrong side of the road. Witness thought the driver of the loiTy had lost control of the vehicle when it came across the road and hit the hedge violently. He could not form an estimate of its speed. As far as witness knew, there was nothing to prevent tho lorry driver seeing the cyclist. To the Coroner: There was nothing to prevent -the cyclist seeing tho lorry. Tr Mr Neill: There was nothing in the speed of either vehicle to attract witness’s attention, and nothing to indicate the possibility of a collision. The cyclist was on his proper side of the road.

Charles Sheppard Hellyer, a milkman, said that he was driving his father’s half-ton light delivery van at a, speed of twenty miles per hour on his correct side of tho. road. When approaching the intersection of Musselburgh Rise and Tainui road he slowed up to fifteen miles per hour, sounded his horn, and kept a sharp look-out for any traffic approaching the intersection. He looked to bis right, along Tainui road, saw no traffic approaching, and continued on. When just across Tainui road he was struck on the left front mudguard By-" the'- -’motor cycle. The deceased was thrown straight over the bonnet on to the ground, and the cycle was dragged under the van. The brakes were put out of action, and witness was unable to stop until the van had reached the fogtpath. When approaching the intersection he did not look to his left over the vacant section towards Musselburgh Rise, as he was looking straight ahead, and was also watching Tainui road on his right. He did not see the cycle, until it struck

the van. As soon as tfie collision occurred he applied his brakes, but felt that they were not operating. Later it was found that the cycle had got under the van and had disconnected the brake rod. The hand and foot brakes were thus rendered useless. The cycle had also forced the bumper bar of the van into tho inside of the front left wheel, thus causing the steering wheel to be ineffective and the van to swerve on to the left-hand side ot the road. The weather during the morning had been bad, and witness had a canvas cover up on the left side of the cab with a celluloid window in it. Immediately prior to the accident he did not hear any horn sounded or the noise of anv other vehicle.

To Mr Ward: Witness had not gone to bed until 2.30 on the morning of the accident, and had had about three hours’ sleep. He was not feeling tired that morning. He would have to give way to anyone coming down Tamm road. Ho considered that he had an absolute right of way as far as Musselburgh Rise was concerned. Witness denied that ho was on his wrong side of the road. The brakes of the lorry were relined about three weeks before the accident. Witness denied that he was travelling at thirty miles an hour at the time of the collision. Just the momentum ot the lorry took it across the road and dragged the cycle with it. i he lorry touched the hedge; it did not hit it violently. The fact that he travelled 106 ft to the kerb with the motor cycle under him was not, in witness’s opinion, consistent with speed. Witness could not say when his foot failed to secure action from the brake, whether it slipped on to the accelerator or not. To Mr Neill; The brakes were tested when the new pin was put in after the accident and they were in good order. They were also in , good order before the accident. . Constable Olliffe submitted a plan of the locality. He said that the connecting rod of the brakes had been disconnected, probably by the motor cycle being dragged under the van for some distance. The Coroner reviewed the evidence and stated that it was not clear how the motor cyclist came into the exact position where the accident occurred. Hellyer’s particular duty was to traffic on the right in crossing this intersection, as well as all traffic on the stiect generally, and there was no explanation as to how tho cyclist came to the spot of the collision. Hellyer had the ricrlit of the road and the cyclist had a particular duty to see that the way was clear. The Coroner did not see that blame could be attached to the driver of the van.