PROSECUTION FOLLOWS MOTOR COLLISION

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6857, 12 March 1929, Page 8

PROSECUTION FOLLOWS MOTOR COLLISION

Female Driver Convicted on

One Charge

INSUFFICIENT CARE SHOWN AT DANGEROUS CORNER

Lengthy evidence was heard by Mr. J, L. Sout, S.M., in the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, when Hilda Wilson, a married woman of Hunterville, pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving a car at excessive speed and a further charge of failing to give way to traffic on her right, as required by the motor vehicles regulations. The case aiose out of an accident which occurred at the intersection of Number 4, or Newbury line and Rangitikei line on October 7 of last year, when a car driven by defendant and a motor cycle ridden by Henry Edmonds of Marton, came into collision. Both Edmonds and a boy w'hom he was carrying as a pillion passenger, suffered injuries. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate hold that defendant had not given way to tho motor cyclist as required by the regulations and convicted on this charge. The second charge of driving a>t an excessive speed was dismissed. Mr. L. G. Thompson, of Hunterville, appeared for Mrs. Wilson, while Senior-Sergeant E. J. Whitehouse, conducted the case for the police. Henry Edmonds in the box, stated that on the date of the accident,. he had been proceeding along Rangitikoi lino in the direction of Marton. Some 200 yards from the intersection, where the accident had' occurred, he had stopped his motor cycle in order to investigate engine trouble. He had continued his journey in second gear, in order to discover whether the machine was running 'properly. As he had come opposite the intersection of No. 4 line, he had seen a car coming into Bangit ikei line. He had just had time to apply his brakes and switch off the engine, when his machine had been struck and ho had remembered nothing more after striking the road. The car had been travelling at about 40 miles per hour when he had seen it, while he had been riding at about 10 miles per hour. He had not seen the car sooner because of the trees on the corner. In reply to Mr. Thompson, witness stated that he had not seen the car until he was right on tho corner. His bicycle had been not quito halfway across tho intersection when the collision had occurred. He had been well over on the left hand side of the road at tho time. It was not a fact that he had run into the car. The Toad was in a bad condition and he had been riding in the wheel track on the left hand side. He had net made any complaint at tho time of the accident because he had suffered concussion. Ho would swear that ho did not say that he tried to stop the cycle but could not do so because the machine skidded. He would say that about a second had elapsed from the time he had seen the car until he had been struck. He had never got more than 10 miles per hour out of his bicycle in second gear. He had been carrying a pillion rider but had proper equipment for that purpose on his machine.

Cycle Dashed lute Air. Stanley Edmonds, son of tihe previous witness, stated in evidence that he had been on a second motor cycle which had been behind that ridden by his father. Half way between the cheese factory and the corner, his father had had trouble with his machine and had pulled up. They had discovered that there was water in the benzine and After rectifying the trouble, witness had tried out the cycle before handing it over to his father. The latter, with his pillion rider, Eoy Horgan, had started off first and witness had waited to see whether their machine was running properly. The next thing he had seen was his father’s machine flying up in the air as the result of a collision with a car which had come out of No. 4 line intersection. On arriving at the scene of the accident, witness had found Horgan lying in the middle of the road while witnesses father had been lying on the side. Ho had examined his father’s machine and had seen that it was in second gear. Witness had not seen the car at all before the collision, but it had travelled a little over a chain after the impact.

Car Travelling Hast. The next witness was Edmond’s pillion passenger, B-oy Horgan. He corroborated the evidence already given with regard to the speed at which the motor cycle had been travelling, and the fact that it had been in second gear when passing the corner. The car had been travelling at 40 miles per hour, and witness had not seen it until it was only two yards away. After that, witness remembered nothing, except that someone had lifted him up from the middle of the road where he had been lying. As a result of the accident. he had had his leg fractured in two places and had been in hospital for ten w r eeks. They had not seen the car sooner, on account of the trees. Douglas McKenzie, a farm hand, stated in evidence that ho had been in the neighbourhood of the No. 4 line intersection at the time of the accident. Ho estimated the speed of defendant’s car at anything from 35 to 40 miles per hour, while she had not appeared to slacken speed a great deal when approaching the corner. He had also seen the motor cycle just before it had crossed the corner and it had appeared to him to bo travelling at about 12 to 15 miles per hour. In his opinion, the collision would not have occurred if the car had slackened speed. Went 30 Yards After Impact. Thomas Eoss, farmer, of Kairanga, told the court that he had proceeded to the scene of the accident shortly after

examined the wheels tracks of both vehicles, which showed that- they had both been on their correct side. Marks on tho road clearly indicated where the collision had taken place. Witness had stepped out the course the car had taken after the impact, and had found that the machine had travelled 31 yards to the point where it had.come to rest,

Corroborative evidence was given by Noel Ross, son of the previous witness. Tho horn of the car appeared to him to have been sounded just as the collision occurred.

To Mr. Thompson, witness stated that he had been about 25 chains away from the corner. He could not say which driver had been at fault or which vehicle struck the other. ’This closed the case for the police.

Defendant’s Case. Defendant, in evidence, stated that she had been driving along No. 4 line before the accident at a speed not in excess of 25 miles per hour. She had sounded the horn, and slowed down before reaching the corner. When she had first seen the motor cyclist, he had boon on the other side of a small culvert which spanned the road just before tho corner. Her car had been about three quarterway across the intersection when the motor cycle had run into it. Witness had been driving at about 15 miles per hour across the intersection. She had never, at any time, been travelling at 40 miles per hour. Witness had been driving a car for four and a-half years, and had nover previously had an accident. The motor cycle had strack the car on the front of the running board and witness had pulled the machine up on the grass at the side of the road. S.’.e had got out to see whether the motor cyclists were hurt and had asked the older of the two whether he was all right. He had replied in the affirmative and had not made any statement blaming witness for tho collision. Did Not Observe Regulations. t To the senior sergeant, witness stated. that her speedometer had been in good order, although she admitted that she had not been watching it closely. Her ear had been provided with four wheel brakes but she did not know what distance she could pull up in with these. The Magistrate: Twenty to twentyfive feet. Senior-Sergeant Whitehouse: When approaching an intersection, tho regulations require you to slacken speed and if necessary pull up to allow traffic on your right to pass. Did you do this? Witness: No. To Mr. Thompson: I did not consider at the time that there was any possibility of a collision. The motor cyclist was travelling very fast and I was surprised when he hit me. Senior-Sergeant Whitehouse: You say the cyclist hit you. Are you sure it was not the otheT way about? Witness: I am sure he hit the car.

Past Speed in Second Gear. Graham Wilson, fanner of Hunterville and husband of defendant, stated that he had had 15 years’ experience of motor cars and cycles. With his wife and himself in the car at the time of the accident, had been his father, mother, and son. He had been sitting ir. the front seat beside his wife and had been looking out of the car at the country. Ho had, for that reason, not been watching the speedometer, but he was snro that they had not been travelling fast. His wife was a very cautious driver and 30 miles per hour was her limit. He remembered her Bounding the horn and slackening speed before the car reached the intersection. When he had first perceived the motor cycle, it had been about 40 to 50 yards from the corner and he had thought that there was no possibility of a collision.

To the Magistrate, witness stated that the car had been nearly on the corner when he had seen the approaching motor cyclist. Visibility was bad, however, owing to the stumps of a hedge on the corner. The Magistrate: How far were you from the corner?

Witness: Not more than four or five yards. The Magistrate: So that the motor cycle must have been travelling at 150 miles per hour in second gear in order to strike you. A five year old motor cycle could not go anything like that speed in top gear. Senior-Sergeant Whitehouse: You say that the motor cycle was 40 yards away when you saw it. Wc have had witnesses here to say that they did not see your caT until it was only two yards away. After that will you still sup-

the collision had taken place. Ho had port your statement? ■Witness: Yes. Motor Cycle Skidded. Coroborative evidence was givon by William Wilson of Hunterville, father of the previous witness. He stated that he had got out after the collision and spoken to Edmonds, who was lying on the road. Edmonds had told him that he had tried to pull up but had skidded on the looso metal ana had been unable to stop. He was sure that Mrs. Wilson had not been travelling at 40 miles per hour. She was a very careful driver. Measurements. Charles Tennyson Salmon, licensed surveyor of Palmerston North, stated that he had inspected the sceno of the accident that morning and had taken measurements. Visibility at the corner was very bad owing to trees. .At the same time, if the motor cyclist had been keeping a good look out, he should have seen the car before it was only two yards away. Mr. Thompson: If the cyclist was 106 feet away from tho point of impact, when tho car was 56 feet away, it would appear that the speed of tho motor cycle must have been very much greater than the speed of the car. Witness: It works out at practically double. The Magistrate: The evidence does not show that it was exactly double, but seems to show that it was slightly less. The evidence is fairly plain That the motor cycle was travelling in second gear and it therefore appears that the cycle must have gone 106 feet in the time which the car took to go 56 feet. Your measurements are correct of course, but you had to take them according to what you were shown. Not Sufficient Care Shown. In reviewing the evidence, tho Magistrate stated that he did not consider that he had had sufficient before him to convict on the charge of excessive speed. On tho other charge, however, he considered that defendant had committed a breach of the regulations in not giving way to other traffic on her right. A motor cycle travelling in second gear could not travel at twice tho speed of tho car. It appeared to him that the two parties must have been equal distances from the corner, and in these circumstances, defendant should have stopped and given right of way. The corner was a dangerous one, with bad visibility and defendant should have* approached it prepared to stop. He did not think that defendant had exercised due care and would accordingly enter a conviction with a fine of £2. Costs, with witnesses expenses, amounted to £7 7s.