“RECKLESS DRIVING"

Taranaki Daily News, 10 April 1935, Page 5

“RECKLESS DRIVING"

TOO MUCH IN DISTRICT COMMENTS BY THE MAGISTRATE. PARTIES TO COLLISION FINED. • ' ' '< ■: ’ • J • There was too much reckless driving in the district, said Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at the New Plymouth court yesterday in inflicting \fines of £7 10s each ’ on two motorists convicted of offences against the Motor Vehicles Act.

The charges arose out of a collision at the intersection of Hobson and Devon streets, New Plymouth, early on the morning of Sunday, March 3, between cars driven by Terence Hotene O’Carroll, Bertrand Road, Tikorangi, and Joseph Ford Drinkwater, Upland Road Egmont Village. Drinkwater was driving east along Devon Street and O’Carrbli was driving up Hobson Street from the sea. O’Carroll, who was charged with failing to give way to traffic on the right, was represented by Mr.' W. Middleton and Drinkwater, charged with driving in a manner that might have been dangerous to the public, had Mr. C. Deem as counsel. At the hearing on Monday, when Mr. Woodward reserved his decision till yesterday, Senior-Sergeant E. T. C. Turner conducted the prosecution. O’Carroll was going to Pukenui Street, said Mr. Woodward, to which the quickest way was across Devon Street. The agreed point of impact was a few feeton the sea side of the tram rails in; Devon Street and about the centre of Hobson Street.

The evidence against O’Carroll was chiefly that of Wakelin, who knew neither of the parties and said O’Carroll was travelling at 30 miles an hour and was going straight across Devon Street. Wakelin also said there were five people in O’Carroll’s car. ■

Hill was a friend, of O’Carroll and therefore his evidence was discounted somewhat He said . O’Carroll was not going across Devon Street but was turning into the street. Hill said there were only two people in O’Carroll’s carl

O’Carroll’s evidence was contradicted • by Wakelin as to the number of people in the car and by Constable Mitchell as to his intention.

POSITION OF IMPACT.

It appeared to him, said Mr. Woodward, that the position of the point of impact contradicted O’Carroll’s story for, if anything, the collision had taken place on the right of the centre line of Hobson Street. O’Carroll' had said he had applied his brakes and tried to turn the corner. He appeared to have been going too fast.

He would accept Wakelin’s evidence of this, said the magistrate, and found that O’Carroll’s speed was excessive and that he had failed to give way. The principal evidence against Drinkwater was that of Bellringer,, in front of whom Drinkwater’s car passed. “Bellringer said Drinkwater was travelling too fast and as he was a neutral witness he was not likely to exaggerate the speed,. Hill had also given evidence of Drinkwater’s speed which was discounted somewhat by the fact that he was a friend of O’Carroll. . - . Drinkwater himself said that he was travelling at not more than 25 xniles per hour and braked to 15 or 16 miles per hour. He heard the squeal of brakes and Mr. Woodward said he could not think of any more peremptory warning. Nevertheless Drinkwater accelerated. He found that Drinkwater was travelling at an excessive speed. It had been argued for O’Carroll' from the legal' point that the accident was caused- by Drinkwater’s speed. There was no substance in that argument when it was-shown, by the evidence that O’Carroll himself could not give way. It had been argued for Drinkwater that he had' the right of way and was entitled to assume O’Carroll would give, way. Drinkwater was not entitled to “barge” along. It had; also been argued that speed across' the intersection did not place' the onus of proof on Drinkwater when the charge was one of driving “in a manner” dangerous to the Public and not “at a ( speed” dangerous to the public. In this’ case the speed was the manner dangerous to the public. Both would be convicted.

“There is too much reckless driving in ; this district,” added Mr. Woodward. “Maybe the penalties are too light. I . shall have to correct that impression.. Each defendant will be fined £7 10s.” Costs were £1 19s’each and’Drinkwater and O’Carroll were given, time, to pay.