CORNER COLLISION

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1935, Page 6

CORNER COLLISION

DUTIES OF A MOTORIST. RIGHT HAND RULE IN POINT. A collision at the intersection of Miranda and Regan Streets, Stratford, between cars driven by Henry Ashcroft and William Hoskin, both of -Stratford, was the subject of a police prosecution against Ashcroft in the Stratford Court yesterday, when he was fined £1 (costs £1 3s Id) on a charge of failing to give way to traffic on his right. Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., presided. Sergeant C. M. Anniss prosecuted and Mr. E. S. Rutherfurd acted for Ashcroft. Mr. Hoskin’s car was travelling in a westerly direction along Regan Street and Mr. Ashcroft's was being driven in a northerly direction along Miranda Street. - Hoskin, a draper at Stratford, said he left the shop abojit 12.40 p.m. and, after going to the south position of the business area, he returned north along Broadway and turned into Regan Street. He was not travelling at more than 20 miles per hour and, as he approached the Miranda Street intersection, he sounded the horn. Then his wife called “Look out!” and he saw a car approaching on his left. He swung to the right to avoid it but a collision occurred. It was raining and blowing strongly at the time. Similar evidence was given by Mrs. Hoskin.

Details of the damage done to the cars were explained by Constable W. Hughes.

When he approached the intersection, Ashcroft stated, he saw a man walking along Regan Street in a westerly direction across Miranda Street. Ashcroft sounded his horn and when he saw the pedest.’»an, who was on his right, stop, he turned his attention to the left. It was then that he felt a bump and Hoskin’s car hit his. His car came to rest in the gutter on the north-west corner of the intersection.

Mrs. Ashcroft' and her son, Henry Charles, described incidents prior to the impact. The evidence showed that Hoskin’s car must have struck Ashcroft’s, Mr. Rutherfurd said. Had Hoskin’s, baby car been struck by the large, heavy car driven by Ashcroft it would have been turned over. The regulation was made to prevent uncertainty when two drivers saw each other’s cars but in this case Ashcroft did not see the other car till the impact and Hoskin did not see Ashcroft’s car till it was a few feet away. He considered that any driver should watch out carefully to the left because traffic approaching from that side was .much closer than that on the right. In this case Hoskin should have watched for traffic on his left particularly because any vehicle on his right would have had to travel all the way across the wide street, before it became a danger. If the collision was not the result of pure accident then he thought Hoskiri was 1 negligent. From the evidence on the damage done to the cars it was difficult to say which car struck the other, the magistrate said, but it was not a matter of negligence and he quoted the regulation showing that in the case of two cars approaching an intersection in such a way that a collision was possible, the driver with the Other car on his right must give way. In this case there was a possibility of a collision in view of what happened. It was not proved that Ashcroft gained the intersection first and there would have to be a conviction though he did not consider the case one for a heavy penalty.