A TRAFFIC PROBLEM.

Otaki Mail, 30 May 1930, Page 1

A TRAFFIC PROBLEM.

POINT RESERVED BY MAGISTRATE. SHOULD ONE DRIVER OVERTAKE ANOTHER AT UNMARKED INTERSECTION? COLLISION AT A DANGEROUS CORNER. A question that will interest motorists particularly was reserved by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., when a case arising out of a collision '<■ at Ohau was heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Levin on Thursday. The problem was whether the driver of a lorry on the Main Highway, not knowing of the existence of an unmarked intersection, did right in overtaking a van there. As the result of his action, he collided with a car coming out of the side roadTiie ease was one in which John Nielsen was charged with having negligently driven- a motor vehicle at Ohau on Sunday, March 23rd. He pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr K. E. Adams. Constable Bagric stated that the defendant was driving his motor lorry from Otaki in the direction of Levin, and when near the corner of the Main Highway and the Kukn Beach Road lie was overtaking a motor-van. A third vehicle, a motor car, came out of the side road and went across the main, road on to its left side and was partly oil the road, when it was struck by the vehicle driven by Nielsen. The’ rule as to a vehicle on the left of the road giving way to traffic coining in on the right did not ajiply in this case, as the defendant had had no right to overtake the van when near-. ing the intersection. If the driver of the car from the side road could see that he had ample time and could cross'to the correct si.de without fouling any traffic coming on its correct side, lie was justified in crossing over the road. The prosecution alleged that Nielsen was negligent in attempting to pass the van and going on to the right of the road at the intersection. Evidence was given by Alfred Edward Catley, aged 17, who stated that on March' 23rd he was driving hjs father's car idling Khkl! fiegch Ttoad. j towards the Main Highway. When lie was hearing the corner, some children came on the road and he sounded the horn and nearly stopped. When the children were clear, lie drove the car on to the intersection and when it was in about the centre of the highway lie noticed the lorry coming straight for him. He first saw the van —a baker’s delivery vehicle — nbojjt a chain away and crossed in front tif it to the Co treat side. The van was nearer to the car than the lorry was. The lorry struck the car, the right back wheel of which was just on the edge of the bitumen, the left wheel being on the -grass. There were . six people in the car that witness was driving. He had a driver’s license, and had been driving for about nine months,

In reply to a Question by Mr, Ada ms, witness stated that lie did not know the off-side rule. Mr Adams: Do you know that you have to giy? tyay to traffic approaching on your right? Witness: No. Mr Adams: If you had obsfejtvcd that rule, there would have been no accident whatever. You have, if necessary, to stop to let traffic approaching on your right go past. You were coining "out'slriwly; yog coffid Imyo stopped when you first, saw the van. You said the van was a chain away; that is not very far. Did you not take a risk in passing in front of that van? Did you 'accelerate to got across the road? / Witness: Yes. Mr Adams: That also is forbidden by the regulations. His Worship What! To get out of a car’s road? I don’t think so.

Air Adams: If there was any negligence, it was on the driver of the ear. His Worship: If you establish negligence on the boy, it docs not say you were not also guilty. Re-examined by Constable Bagrie, witness said he had not cousid,ered that there was any danger in passing i.u front of the baker’s van when he saw it. If was gbout twenty feet buck when he crossed in front of it, The van was travelling at about 20 to 25 miles an hour.

Corroborative evidence was given by William H. Catley, farmer, of To Horo and father of the previous witness. lie stated that lid was a passenger in the car, and the accident occurred between 4 and 5 p.m. Three were thrown out of the car, and he suffered the most, receiving injuries to .the face, from ,which he had now just about recovered. Constable Bagrie’s evidence was to the effect that on the day of the accident he received 'telephone - advice of -it. ’ He typpt to the spot and found Catley’a ear on t ]fp left of the road. There was a small bank tlrnre, and the car could not have travelled any further -in that direction. Nielsen explained that he wa.3 overtaking the van and travelling at about 30 to 35 miles an hour; he had accelerated to pass the van and had forgotten the existence of the side. road. Witness looked at the marks on the road, ami they were plain where Nielsen’s truck had been braked for 27 yard? .before striking Catley's car. There was no doubt that the accident had happened .on CatloyV correct side of the road and that "Nielsen was on his right-hand side, which was the wrong place on the road, at the time of the accident. To Mr Adams:—lt was a fairiy busy thoroughfare. A fair number of • cars had pulled up, to sec what had happened. Mr Adams: Mere the marks yon measured on ijie bitumen made by some other car?

The Constable. —No; they were the marks of one of the ears concerned in. the accident. The marks went right ok to where the accident happened.

Air Adams, in opening the defence, said that their explanation of the accident was that Nielsen did not know of the existence of the side road. Defendant' had only beem over the road two or three times in the course- of several vears. and the view at' this piueP w/ii very much obstructed by high maerocarya trees. Tip corner was not marked by signpost dr otherwise, and Nielsen was not iu effect negligent} bad he known of the existence of the suit road, he would certainly not have attempted to pass the van. Allan Maitland, in giving evidence, stated tbit he was a baker, of Paekaiariki. He was out for a drive to Levin .on the date in question, and was Ravelling on the correct side, of the road, i»t a speed of about 25 miles —perhaps m shade Jess. He beard fi vehicle “foot” behind him, and wavod to it to eoaw on. Everything was -clear in front, and he-...did not see tin: side road; he had ffaly been over this part ®f ihc. highway twice, and ttis

was right on tiie corner before he saw it; the view of it was very much ■obscured by trees. When he first eaught sight of the car coming out of the side road, he was mot far from it —about fifty feet. The.car was coming out at about twenty miles an hour; it had amide time to have stopped, but it continued at the same pace. As soon’as he saw it, lie had to put on the brakes. He would not have . struck it, because he could, have swerved in. Tire car passed in front of him, and he saw the lorry strike it. The lorry was on the right hand side-of the road when the collision occurred. To Constable Bagrie.—Nielsen was practically alongside - witness when the accident happened. Witness was on the extreme left of the road; lie saw the accident from the side of his van.

John Nielsen, the defendant, stated that ho was coming from Otaki towards Levin at about twenty-five miles an hour v He had just abciut caught up to tlic yan, and sounded the Dorr, for the purpose of passing it. The driver of the van put out his hand and wayed witness pu. Witness increased the pace to about thirty miles an hour, and when he wag level with the van the car came out of the side road, the ,existence of which had been unknown ,fo him. He applied the brakes in. -in attempt to stop, and turned towards the van. Just opposite the intersection his lorry struck the car on a rear wheel, and the two vehicles locked together. Some spectators came and •pulled them apart. The lorry—a halftou truck—and its brakes had been in good order. He had had no view of the side road. The van was just about parallel with him when he saw the car, and that prevented his going to the left. He gave plenty of clearance when he was coming "round flu? 3ide of the van.

Constable Bagrie: How 'long have von bpen driving a ear in this district. Defendant replied that lie had been doing so for four and a half years. Ho had been down the highway about six times; the scene of the accident was six or seven miles from where lie lived.

The Afagistrate remarked that, that the corner was one that should be marked by the local authority or the Highways Board.

Air Adams:-TheYMffiity Council have it under COnsi«|ef-atipn to approach the t(i have these trees taken down. His Worship: Apart from that, it should be marked. It is not a corner that you expect much traffic to come out of.

Continuing under cross-examination, defendant stated that it was not more than 18 yards from where he -first saw the car to where he struck it. He applied the brakes instantaneously. It was ‘not correct to say that the" distance was 27 yards. ‘lie suggested that-the Constable had not traced his (defendant's) marks at all. The' skidmarks were plain to be seen just after the accident, but not when the Constablo arrived on' the scene. Constable Bagrie: I am very sorry to hear that you dispute my statement. Air Adams: He is just suggesting that, you have been nj islpd. His Worship (to. defendant): Did APli <!CP any other marks that could haye misled' the Constable Defendant: Aes. A big car came from the -same direction as I had done, just after the accident, UHd it stopped just about touching the tailboard of tile lorry, and I think that Constable Bagric has taken those marks.

.Constable Bagric: I beg to differ with you very much. Ilis W.orsaip observed that the defendant must have been travelling at 35 miles an hour at least and could W.>t hay-0 pulled up ill less than 75 feet.

The next witness was P. O. von Hartitcsch, garage proprietor. He stated that he was returning from I’araparaumu on March 23rd, and met Constable Bagric at the scene of the accident. Nielsen’s lorry had been shifted from where the accident had occurred. The car would be approximately where it finished up; it was on its wheels and just round the corner of the road south of the intersection. Witness considered the corner a deathtrap. lie had passed it hundreds of times. To the motorist coming north the trees did not show a break. The Beach Road ended at the Alain Highway. Defendant’s car was in absolutely good order prior to the accident: it had only done 1000 miles up to a week, before. He considered that, seeing each other where they did, n. was physically .impossible for the two drivers to a void a collision. He had tested the lorry, and its stopping distance at 30 miles an hour, with fourwlfeel brakes, was 14 yards, and at 35 miles an hour 74 feet. The distance between the two vehicles would have to lie 130 feet for them to, stop, if both were in good order and had efficient drivers. He had reckoned the speed, of the car coming round the corner at 15 miles an hour. His \\ orslup said that defendant only negligence was in pulling out to pass an intersection. The question was whether, that intersection being not marked, the man should be convicted.

Constable Bagrie said it had been established that, where - a man had made up his mind,to pass another vehicle, lie had to satisfy "hitiisoif that be could so so with safety, and not till then was he justified in pulling out to pass,

Bis I\orsfiip: It <5 only q question whether knowledge is essential. Constable Bagrie: I don’t think if is. If yon had to prove that, vou coubj never ger a conviction, His Worship: The question is whether, this being an unmarked road, one should call a man criminally negligent for pulling out to pass when he did not know that the road was there. It is a question of “mens »rra,” and I do not know that offhand I conld give a decision that should be taken as a precedent. Possibly Air Adams should submit authorities." Tfiere is no dispute as to the facts. . Air Adams s3id that if the case were ip staipj over, he would sub, rnjt authorities.

His Worship: And the police might. I will reserve my decision till next Court day, and in the meantime Air Adams can show authorities to the police and they can show -them to me. as to whether it is. essential to probe knowledge or whether you assume a man’s knowledge when he Takes the risk of driving along the road. Judgment was reserved accordingly.