CAR DRIVER TO BLAME

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 19 June 1931, Page 2

CAR DRIVER TO BLAME

SEQUEL TO A RECENT COLLISION

MAtiISTRATIBS RESERVE!> DECISION

Al tli<> Magistrale's Court, this morning Mr T. E. Mauus.oll, S.M., gave reserved decision in the police ease heard last week against Harry Coltina.ii who was charged with driving a motor vehicle on Waimoa road in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, was dangerous to the public. In stating that the prosecution had established its case, His Worship gave the following detailed decision:— “Defendant is charged with driving a motor car in a manner dangerous to the public as a sequel to an accident at the intersection of Waimoa. road and Hampden street, as a result of which defendant collided with one Rodley, who was riding a. motor cycle. Rodley was travelling in the same, direction as, and ahead of defendant, and was turning to his right along Hampden street. I am satisfied that he signalled his intention to turn, and that defendant did not see him until it was too late to avoid a collision. The witness Walker who noticed defendant, csliinat.es his speed at not less than 35 m.p.h. and certainly more than 25 m.p.li. If defendant’s speed exceeded 25 m.p.h. or 15 .m.p.li. when approaching the intersection it was prinia facie a dangerous speed. Defendant denies exceeding a. speed of 25 m.p.h.; hut in seeking to contravert other evidence with regard to the alleged length of his skill marks caused through braking, he has, in my opinion, indicated that. Walker, who is an independent witness, is correct. “Defendant says that as a result of tests made after t lie accident at the locus in quo lie found that he could stop tiis car within 15 feet at 25 m.p.h., or within 20 feet at 35 m.p.h. According to liis own evidence when lie first saw tlie motor car, he was 20 feet away from I lie intersection. The collision took place Oft 6in from the other side of Hampden street, which is 341'l 6in wide. Defendant therefore, on his own evidence, travelled a distance of 45 feet after seeing Rodley and had not even then, stopped. At 15 m.p.h., which was the speed limit on approaching the intersection, lie could stop in less than the length of his car. De says: ‘L did not apply my brakes until about 10 or 15 feet front the corner.’ Even so, he travelled 35 or 40 feet after doing so. Again, lie says that, when lie saw Rodley he was not sure that had lie (defendant) turned to his left he would not have hit Rodley broadside, on, and so he turned sharply to the right. If his speed was excessive I can realise this dilemma., hut if he was doing not more than 15 m.p.li. there was no need to turn either way as lie could have stopped and allowed Rodley to pass clear of him. As he feared striking Rodley broadside on. the latter must have actually turned when first seen by defendant anil the distance between them was at least 40 feet. “I do not see how on this alone 1 can do otherwise than conclude that there was negligence in. some way on his part. Defendant must have been rapidly overhauling the motor cycle, as when it passed his gate he was stationary and had to back off his premises. “Defendant says that a ear with headlights on on the wrong side of the road forced him to go fo his wrong side of the road. In my opinion that does not satisfactorily explain why lie failed to see the motor'evde. sooner than he did, or why he failed to stop. But in any case, if lie felt compelled to take the wrong side, of the road and lost sight of the motor cycle on that account, he was under an obligation to exercise the greater vigilance as lie knew the motor cycle was immediately ,in. front of him and lie knew he was approaching an intersection.

“I have no doubt that defendant was taken by surprise but it seems clear to me that he took a risk not consistent with prudent driving, and I feel compelled lo hold that the case for the prosecution. has been established.” Defendant was fined £3 and ordered to pay court costs £1 Bs, and witnesses’ expenses 10s. Witness expenses were taken into account in determining the fine.