SPEED OF MOTOR CARS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14225, 23 November 1909, Page 7

SPEED OF MOTOR CARS.

WARNING SIGN POSTS.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—sreciaI correspondent.]

Wellington, Monday.. In asking for the dismissal of an information, charging a defendant with driving a motor car at a dangerous speed, counsel submitted at the Police Court to-day that a section- of. the Act regulating motor cars had not been conformed with. He quoted the particular section, which provided that "the local authority of any district in which any such by-law is in force shall cause to be set up sign posts, denoting the limit of speed at which , motors may •be driven on such bridge, or road, or place, which may be deemed to be dangerous by the local authority." Counsel pointed out that in the case before the Court there was no evidence that the sign posts were in position. The magistrate held thjjr the contention was insufficient.

ENGLISH POLICE ACTIVE. [from our own correspondent.] London, October 15. To check speeding on the part of motorists, the English police have measured distances marked all over the country roads, for the purpose of timing cars, and arresting them if necessary. To combat this, the Automobile ■ Association employs hundreds of "scouts," cyclists with badges on their arms, whose duty it is to patrol the roads in the neighbourhood of the " traps," and warn the drivers of cars which bear the association's badge if the police are in attendance. This has generally, been regarded as obstructing the police, and the Home Secretary has announced that he will bring in legislation to prohibit it. However, a case on appeal has just been decided, which shows the existing law to be sufficient for the purpose. One Fred. Betts, a scout in the service of the Automobile Association, had been convicted by a Surrey magistrate, and fined £5, and 8s 6d costs. He appealed against the conviction, and his counsel argued that no obstruction was committed. Without calling on counsel for the police, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Mr. Justice Darling said that if a warning was given by a person to prevent .an offence, that would not be an obstruction. If the magisstrates had found that Betts had simply told a man to slow down because his speed was dangerous, they would not. have convicted. But what Betts did was wilfully to prevent the policeman, with a stopwatch, from getting evidence to support the evidence' of his brother officers, and, therefore, he was guilty of obstruction. The secretary of the Automobile Association (Mr. Stenson Cooke), after the conviction, said: "We have no intention of withdrawing any of our men, or in any way of weakening our system of patrols. Instead of spending less money, it is probable that we shall spend more. We naturally regret this conviction, though we are not in the least distressed about it. Our point of grievance is that the safety of the public is relegated to a very inferior position. The chief efforts of the local authorities appear to be confined to making money out of the technical and venial offence of travelling at a slight excess of the speed limit. In some cases, hundreds of pounds weekly are being made out of motorists to relieve the rates."