DIMMING OF LIGHTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18942, 13 February 1925, Page 12

DIMMING OF LIGHTS.

MOTOR COLLISION CASE.

LORRY LEFT NEAR LAMP.

STATUTE* OVERRIDES BY-LAW

Interesting comment on tho dimming of headlights was made by Mi*. W. U. McKcan, S.M., in giving reserved judgment in a motor collision case in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. R. T. Peacoeko, merchant, sought £46 4s 3d damages from W. At ten borough, carrier, as tho result of a collision between a motor-car driven by plaintiff's daughter and a motor-lorry belonging to defendant. It was alleged tho lorry was left unlighted and unattended in Park Road a few feet behind a street lamp on tho evening of August 12 last. Plaintiff's car, tho magistrate said, was proceeding toward Grafton Bridge, and tho driver, after turning the corner by the hospital, found a row of cars approaching. Tneso cars dimmed their headlights and the plaintiff's car did the same. A few moments later tho collision occurred. There was a slight drizzlo of rain at the time. There was nothing to justify a finding that plaintiff's car was being driven fast, or that tho driver was not keeping a proper look-out. The practice of dimming was one that had caused much controversy in England, but had become general and would probably continue until science provided the motorist with some method of illuminating his path without dazzling tho driver of an approaching vehicle. In tho meantime ho was not prepared to bold that tho practice of dimming the headlights of a car when approaching another amounted to negligence on the part of a driver whose car was being driven slowly. The Auckland City by-law permitted an unlighted vehicle to be parked under a street lamp, but a by-law could not over-ride the provisions of a statute, and. tho person who left his vehicle unlighted did so in violation of tho provisions of a statute. Tho want of light on a sta, tionary or on a moving vehicle would not excuse carelessness on the part of any other user of tho highway, but in this case the driver of the car did not know of the existence of the motor-lorry until she was unable to avoid it. Judgment would bo given for plaintiff for £3O 14s 9d, with costs.