ESTIMATES OF SPEED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 6 August 1926, Page 4

ESTIMATES OF SPEED.

The van seemed to be travelling at about 30 to 35 miles an hour. As it was going at right angles to the track followed by witness, he was better able to estimate its speed than that of the car, which he thought was going at about 15 to 20 miles ftn hour. Neither car had: the headlights showing, the road being visible without them. In the opinion of witness, the accident was due to the speed at which defendant had been driving. Donald Freeman 'Gray, th© 'driver of the paper delivery car, said that his speed, when nearing the intersection, was about ten miles an hour. He gave the warning signal with the electric horn before coming to the comer, but heard no answer. Reaching the.comer, he bad seen the van approftchiug at right angles at a fast pace. Witness tried to swerve to the right, hut the other car, instead of swerving to left, came straight on arid struck witnesses’s eftr broadside' on, pushing it right across the road and crimping the mudguards and running-board. The van was much mom extensively 'damaged than the car, and in the opinion of witness the speed of the other vehicle wfts the direct cause of th© accident. LOW SPEED RECORD.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Dea., witnbsa said that he had seen the van when it was about a- chain from the intersection. Th© head of witnesses’ eftr was then about nine feet from the entrance to the intersection. When right on to the intersection witness had reduced speed to about six miles an hour.

Mr O’Dea: That must be the low speed record for- a Star delivery ear. Witness : Not on.' ftn intersection. Witness denied that his car had skidded for 17 yards prior to reaching the point- of impact, hut said that he had applied his brakes before coming to the corner. Constable Tocher tend ft statement given by defendant to the effect that he had been travelling at about 15 miles an hour; was keeping as good a look-out as possible, ftnd had sounded the horn when approaching the corner. Constable Fleming deposed to having visited the scene short.lv after the accident. It was then dark. It had been raining during the day, and Inter ca-mo down in torrents, but from signs left it appeared that ■ th € , impact had taken place a little to the right of the Glover Road thoroughfare across the intersection on the route followed! by the van. From thie point of impact to the corner where the two vehicles came to rest, no signs* of skid marks could* be detected next morning. On the line taken by Gray’s car wheel marks showed for a distance of 17 yards. These may have been an actual skid* or may have indicated the decreasing revolutions of the wheels as the brakes were gradually applied when the car was nearing the corner. DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITIONS. In evidence, defendant said that as he approached the. corner he was not exceeding 20 miles an. hour. It had been raining hard, and the right-hand side curtain was up, but defendant was keeping as good a. look-out as possible. Witness sounded the warning signal, but did not hear any warning of the approach of another vehicle. He did not see the other eftr until he was within a few feet of it. It was travelling at a greater speed than it should have been, and when the crash took place bad carried the van further out of its course than the van had carried the car. Tli e , speed of the can had turned the van from .its course, and, owing to the rapid approach of the former he had been unable to see at until too late to avoid tines collision. He had not heard any warning. Immediately after the accident he had asked why Gray had not given a signal. To Sergeant Henry witness said he was not aware he, was a driven for whom such an accident had been prophesied. Thle summing up of the magistrate was that- the onus of proof under'both headings of the alleged negligence had been discharged by the police. Defendiint had admitted that lie had not seen the other vehicle practically until tlie collision occurred. .That- the van had been travelling at too great fti speed was shown by the fact that, following the impact, it had forced the car!a'most directly sideways, and therefore on thi? line on which it. would offer almost the greatest possible resistance, from the middle of the intersection to tlie corner.. “I am satisfied,” said the magistrate, “that* defendant wa,s guilty of undue speed,, and of f.ailing to keep a .proper ’ook-oiit or of driving too fast when ho could not see properly.” ' . Defendant- was convicted and fined £3 and £1 6s costs, and his driver’s license was suspended, for 14 dayst “The suspension is given as a warning,” :said his "Worship, in conclusion. “If any further eases of negligent driving are shown before the court, the suspension of the license will be used as n. preventative measure to keep such drivers off the road for longer periods.”