THE DAZZLE PROBLEM

Evening Star, Issue 23094, 21 October 1938, Page 8

THE DAZZLE PROBLEM

MOTORIST STANDARD OF CARE JURY ACMIT DRIVER [Pee United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, October 21. Arising out of a collision between a motor car and a cyclist on tUe West Coast road, the driver of the car, Robert Eric Miiiikeu, was found not guilty when he appeared before Air .justice,.- - Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day charged that he negligently arove a motor car, thereby causing bodily injury to Albert Edward Herbert Vince. Air A. W. Brown prosecuted, and Or A. L. Haslam appeared for accused. Vince, said Mr Brown, was approaching Riccarton along a stretch of straight road near Aaidhurst, and the accused, Miiliken, was driving towards Christchurch from Springfield, and overtook the cyclist. Coming the opposite way was a car which, according to Miiliken, had, very bright lights. Miiliken said subsequently that he was dazzled and did not see the cyclist until he was almost on him. The question was whether Miiliken was negligent in going on instead of stopping when he was, for all practical purposes, blinded. There was no sinister aspect of the case. Miiliken travelled about lOUyds after striking the cyclist, but gave the reasonable explanation that the injured man had been thrown on to the front of the car, and.he feared that, by suddenly braking, he would jolt the man off. Calling no evidence, Dr Haslam, in his address, pointed out that there was no suggestion that Miiliken had taken liquor, that he was driving too fast or was on his wrong side, or that he ran away. As a’ possible explanation of whv Miiliken did not see the red reflector on Vince’s ..machine, Dr Haslam drew attention to the weakness of the headlights on the car. The facts were not in dispute, said His Honour. The only allegation of the Crown was that Miiliken did not see the cyclist as he should have done. As Miiliken said he was not dazzled until the last moment, the jury might consider why he did not see the cycle before he was dazzled, or, if he was dazzled for some time, was he entitled to continue? - “ What is to be the position? asked His Honour, ‘ of cyclists, pedestrians, or others? Are they to be run over, injured, maimed,_ and perhaps killed because a motorist continues to travel when he cannot see them, they being in their proper ip lace on the road? Here is a man on a cycle, properly equipped with every warning device, yet he is run into and gravely injured, and may have been killed by a motorist who says merely that h© could not see him,” It was the iury’s duty, His Honour added, to establish the standard of care required of motorists. f The jury returned with a verdict of not guilty.