MOTORIST FINED

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 June 1937, Page 2

MOTORIST FINED

OMOTO ROAD COLLISION. A collision between two cars, on the Omoto Road, on the evening of May 14, resulted in the appearance in the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, to-day, of Frank Faulkner, who. was charged with driving without due care and attention. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr. J. W. Hannan. Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle said that the information was laid under Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1936. About S p.m., Reginald Thomas Birchfield was driving from Greymouth. On getting a short distance the Cobden bridge, he saw the lights of an approaching car. As it was coming directly for him, he pulled to within two feet of the fence on his’ correct side, and stopped. The other car came on, however, and struck his car on the right-hand mudguards and wheels. The other car was driven by Faulkner. There was fog that night, and a heavy “barber.” The road was 22 feet wide. There was 15 feet on the right of Birchfield’s car, giving defendant 15 feet in which to pass. When defendant stopped, his cai" was within six feet of his wrong side of the road.

Reginald Thomas Birchfield, sawmiller. Ruru, said that, when about five chains past the Cobden bridge, he was travelling about 10 miles per hour. Tire night was very foggy. When ha saw the other car coming, he pulled to his left. He then saw that the car was coming straight for him, and he pulled up. When a few yards away, the other driver tried to swerve, but it was too late, and a fairly heavy collision occurred. Witness’s car received a broken spring and a bent axle. His wife and child were in the front seat with him. The force Of the impact sent the child through tha windscreen. Her chin was cut, and she was taken to the hospital, where three stitches were inserted in the wound. When witness got out of his car, he asked defendant what he was doing. Faulkner said that it was hard to see, owing to the fog, and remarked that he could not see witness’s car until it was too late. Witness saw defendant’s car approaching when it was some distance away. He did not know of any reason why defendant should not have seen his car. When he stopped, witness’s car was two feet from the fence.

To Mr. Hannan: The collision occurred a few feet on the Greymouth side of a bend, but the bend was not very sharp. Witness vktuld be 100 j'ards away when he first saw the lights of defendant’s car. Witness did not dim his lights, although he had dimmers. He did not know whether there were any other cars behind him. but one pulled up three or four minutes later. Defendant did not ask witness whether his lights had been on. To the Senior-Sergeant: He did not see any reason to dim his lights. The fog was heavy, and there was no dazzle.

Constable Cogswell said that he went to the scene after the accident. Birchfield’s car was on the extreme left of the road, about two feet from the fence. Faulkner’s car was two feet from Birchfield’s, and had appai\ ently bounced back after the collision. From the left-hand side of Faulkner’s car to his left-hand side of the road was nine feet. There was. 15 feet of road clear for Faulkner to pass. Defendant went to the police station, and made a. statement. He said that he was coming to town, and was coining down the hill six chains on the Omoto side of the Cobden bridge, when the collision occurred. He saw the lights of another car, and they appeared to ■be some distance away. The next thing he knew, he was right on to Birchfield's car, and the collision took place. There was a heavy fog, and he could not see the left-hand side of the road. He was further to his right than he should have been. His wife and daughter were in the car, but were not injured. He was travelling at about 15 miles per hour. He had had five years’ experience as a driver. Witness added that Faulkner would have a clear view for about 100 yards before he reached the place where the collision occurred.

CASH FOR DEFENCE

Mr. Hannan said that there was a bad fog that night. Faulkner passed three or four cars between the racecourse and the scene of the collision. He was driving very slowly. On the last bend before reaching Greymouth, the natural swing of a car was to the

centre of the road. As Faulkner came around the bend, he saw the.lights of Grbymouth showing dimly through the fog; also the lights of another car. So far as he could see, the lights of the car ;were some distance away. He

was straightening up his car, to get as far to the left as he could, when, the collision took place. He could not see the bank on his left, owing to the fog. The only explanation he could make was that Birchfield might unconsciously have put out the lights of his car. Faulkner, saw the lights of a car at the rear of Birchfield’s car, but did

not see the latter’s lights. It was admitted that Birchfield was as far to his left as he could be, but it was contended that the lights of Birchfield's car were- not visible to Faulkner. Frank Faulkner, sawmiller, of Kaiata, said that it was one of the worst nights ho had experienced, for fog. He drove an average of 1000 miles per month, and had never previously had an accident. He was travelling between and 15 miles per hour on the night of the collision. He passed several r ars between Cmoto and Greymonth. There wa ; a ball at Blackball that i.ignt. nnd several cars passed. The visibility was ger.-'. except at the site of the old brewery. The collision occurred just as bo got around the last bond coming into Greymouth. The natural swing was to the centre of the road at that. bond. As ho got. around the bond, ho saw the lights ci tlie town, and the lights of a car. which lie thought wore near (lie Cobdon bridge. There was no sign of any vehicle between thri.se lights and his ear. He could not see the edge of the road, bin startl'd to go over to the limy,, grave] at Um ~dge ((1 - t | |( , r<l . l( [ The next tiling lie knew, the crush <■<•<•>ll Ted. He asked Birchfield whether his lights had been on all the lime, ami Birchfield said that they bad. Witness was surprised. lie saw tile lights of a car bdiiiid Birchfield.j and could not make out vby lie did ■ not see i]|e fights of i;ir< lifield'- carj Hi’ did not think >liat Birchfields.

lights were uJi all th'- lim", otherwise he would have seen them. He saw llio lights of the car behind l!irchfi"lil. To tho Senior-Sergeant : II" did not say anything about that in his .statement, to the police, because it did not dawn on him at the. time. When he got out of his car, Birchfield’s lights were on. He did not see Birchfield’s car until

the collision occurred. He did not try to swerve, but was getting over to the side of the road, before meeting the other car, the lights of which, he saw. He admitted that he was six feet from his wrong side of the road.

The Senior-Sergeant: Do you think that is correct driving?—l had to feel my way, as the night was so foggy. Do you not think you should have stopped?—There was nothing to stop for.

There might have been a man on the road, and you might have run over him? —I was in the middle of the road, and a man would not be walking in the middle of the road, surely. I saw the lights near Cobden bridge, and was moving over to the- left. You should have seen Birchfield’s car, even if there were no lights on it? —The night was bad. Mrs Jessie Faulkner said that she was in the front, seat. The only lights she saw were two on the Cobden bridge. She. did not see Birchfield’s car until the collision occurred. Had Birchfield’s lights been on, she would have seen them.

To the Senior-Sergeant: The windscreen wiper was working in front of her husband, but there was no w*?er on her side of the windscreen. Mr. Raymond Ferner, S.M.. said that the Court was in the position of knowing the particular bend in the road. It was dangerous, under certain conditions of light and weather. Difficulty was created there by the setting sun. The conditions at the bend demanded more than usual care. His opinion was that defendant did not see Birchfield’s car, and that he should have seen it, but, with the disadvantages of fog and being confronted with a number of lights, he failed to see the car. That did not excuse him, although it was an explanation of how a tisually-careful driver became involved in a collision. The standard of care required was proportionate to the dangers and difficulties presented. In this case, defendant was on his wrong side at a bad bend, and was proceeding when he could not see. Much greater care was required in circumstances such as were present that night at the bend. Anyone who did not exercise the necessary care might well find himself facing a much worse charge than one of driving without due care and attention. There was no suggestion-of recklessness or speeding in this case, and the offence was not so serious as some which came before the Court. He wanted to impress upon drivers and the defendant i hat. the standard of care required was proportionate to the conditions. Sometimes, to stop was the only thing to do. Defendant must be convicted. He would be fined £1 10/-, with 10/Court costs, and 5/4 witness’s expenses.