MOTOR ACCIDENTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 March 1937, Page 12

MOTOR ACCIDENTS

COMMENT BY JUDGE [PER press association.] NELSON, March 16. The fact that all the five cases set down for hearing by a jury were the result of car accidents, was referred to to-day by Mr Juistice Northcroft, in his charge to the Grand Jury, at the opening of the Nelson session of the Supreme Court. His Honor made strong comment on what he described as the present deplorable position, and expressed the view that the public conscience was not sufficiently awakened to the seriousness of the position. The whole list of business for the jury at the session—two criminal and three civil cases—all arise cut of allegations regarding the driving of motor-cars. If it were not for motor cases, there would be no jury business for the session. That was a deplorable state of affairs, and the Grand Jury and himself as Juldge, were bound to take serious notice of it. The public conscience was not sufficiently awakened to the seriousness of the position. There had been mulch propaganda in the papers, but apparently tlfere was not th© public alarm about motor collisions which was necessary for the safety of the people.

His Honor continued: “I entertain the view that so many people take risks by speeding, cutting in, or driving when they have had drink, that the frequency of such actions seems to create sympathy for the motorist who has got into difficulty of this sort. There should be no sympathy for him, as he might be responsible for killing - or wounding. These are strong words, but words too strong cannot be used in reference to such actions. ” His Honor said that if a man in a party with a loaded gun acted stupidly or carelessly, his wrong-doing was not tolerated. The motor-car could not be compared with a loaded shot gun, but more with a machine-gun, as the possibilities for mischief with a car were greater, and the public should adopt the same mental approach to a stupid car-driver as they would to a man acting stupidly with a loaded gun. It was necessary that the public should have no sympathy with the driver who had a few drinks and continued to drive. His wrongdoing was a good deal worse than that of the man who acted stupidly with a gun, as his capacity for wrongdoing was greater. The Court should draw attention to the failure of the public conscience to deal with the man who wounded or killed a man with his car.