WHAT IS A MOTOR CYCLE ?

Manawatu Standard, Volume 9136, Issue 9136, 8 February 1910, Page 5

WHAT IS A MOTOR CYCLE ?

THE QUESTION DECIDED BY THE S.M.

NOT A "VEHICLE" BUT A "CYCLE."

Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., delivered judgment this morning in the case of Perrin v. Gardner, heard yesterday. It will be remembered that the facts were that defendant rode a motor bicycle along the cycle track in Fitzherbert street, in the Borough of Palmer6ton, on the 17th of January, 1910. Section 166 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, provides (1) the Council may, on any existing street hereafter made, construct a public cycle track for the use of cyclists only, and may make by-laws regulating and controlling the use of such cycle track; (2) every person who, except for the purpose of obtaining access to any premises, drives any vehicle, ridc6 or leads any horse, or wilfully allows any horse or any cow or other beast to stray upon any public cycle track within the boundaries of a borough, whether such cycle track has been constructed by the Council or not, and whether it is situate alongside a street or not, liable to a fine not exceeding £5 for every such offence.

The cycle track, therefore, said his Worship in delivering judgment, is for the use of "cyclists only." The defendant claims that he is a cyclist, and as such is entitled to use the track. The informant contends that the defendant is not a mere cyclist, but a motor cyclist, and that he is within the subsection 2: "Every person who drives any vehicle." I have no" hesitation in finding that a motor cycle is a vehicle —that : is "a means of conveyance," but for the matter of that so is an ordinary bicycle. To give therefore the wide meaning to the word "vehicle" in sub-section 2 would exclude the very class for which the track is provided. Its meaning is of course restricted by sub-section 1. The track is for the use of cyclists, that is presons who are riding cycles, and the question simply is: "Is the person rioting a motor cycle a cyclist? No definition of the word "cyclist" is given in the Act. It may be a person riding a bicycle or a tricycle, and, in my opinion, he is no less a "cyclist" because'his cycle is propelled by other than human power. It may not be out of place to observe that a motor cycle may be propelled by human power, though, I suppose, that is never done from choice. However, it seems to me that a distinction is drawn by the two sub-sections between "cycles" and "vehicles." "Cyclists" may use a certain track. "Vehicles" may not. We -do not generally speak of either ordinary bicycles or motor bicycles as "vehicles," though in a sense they are such. Now, if we are told that a, man had driven a "vehicle" past would it be readily understood that he had gone past on a motor cycle ? When, therefore, it comes -to a question, as I think it does, whether a motor cyclist must be classed with the "cyclists" in sub-section 1, or with the "drivers of vehicles" in sub-section 2, my opinion is that he comes under the former. The case was therefore dismissed.