BRAKE TEST ACCIDENT

Taranaki Daily News, 1 November 1935, Page 9

BRAKE TEST ACCIDENT

CYCLIST STRIKES MOTOR-TRUCK. DISMISSAL OF COURT CHARGES. An accident that occurred during brake efficiency tests at New Plymouth in August led to charges against a Hastings motorist, Gordon Oliver McCutcheon, at the New Plymouth Police Court yesterday, both of which were dismissed. McCutcheon was charged with failing to report the accident and with allowing Inspector E. Collings to ride on tile running board of his truck while it was moving. He pleaded not guilty to both through Mr. R. J. Brokenshire and Senior-Sergeant E. T. C. Turner conducted the prosecution. Inspector Collings was on duty in Devon Street, New Plymouth, near the Henui bridge on August 1 in the course of a week’s brake testing. He stopped McCutcheon, climbed on the running board and when the truck was under way again ordered him to apply the brakes. A' cyclist riding several yards behind was unable to stop when the truck came to a sudden standstill, crashing into the rear of the vehicle and hurting his hands. The magistrate held that McCutcheon was not guilty of allowing Collings to ride on the running board as Collings in the course of his duty had a right to be there and McCutcheon was obliged to let him. McCutcheon had failed to report the accident but did not do so because Collings told him he thought there was no need to.

Horace Stanley Hodicrne, hotel porter, said he was riding his cycle towards Fitzroy. He saw Collings get on the right-hand running board of a truck near the Watson Street intersection and was about 15 to 20 yards behind when it moved off down the hill. About halfway down it suddenly stopped and, being unable to pull up, he crashed into the back of it. The driver gave no warning of his intention to stop. To Mr. Brokenshire he said that if the driver had signalled he could not have seen the signal with the inspector on the running board. He knew the inspector was an official hut that was all. To the magistrate he said the inspector was leaning into the cab and the driver could not have put his hand out if he had wanted to.

Edward Collings, assistant inspector, who was on duty testing brakes, said the truck went for 30 or 40 yards down the hill before he told the driver to apply the brakes, which were very efficient. The speed would have been about 15 to 20 miles an hour and everything was done at his direction. SAW ACCIDENT.

He looked behind, said Collings, just in time to see Hodierne coming in contact with the truck. After attending to the injured man he returned to his dyty, McCutcheon giving him his name and address. McCutcheon asked him if the occurrence would have to be reported to the police and he replied that he did not think it was a serious matter, adding that he would have to report it himself at his office.

“I did not think at that time it was a serious matter,” added Collings, “but McCutcheon seemed to think there might be an inquiry' and so he gave me his name and address.” To Mr. Brokenshire Collings, said Mr. Day, chief inspector, and he had not discussed tire question of reporting the accident. Mr. Brokenshire: Why did you choose to ride on the running board? . Collings: It is the usual practice. You could not test the brakes by standing on the street. He stood on the running board, explained Collings, to avoid inconveniencing passengers. He was' not aware of any vehicle behind the truck when he stopped it; if he had been he would not have told the driver to apply his brakes. Mr. Brokenshire: You feel that whatever you did you felt you were entitled to do?—lt was the usual practice. May the court understand that if any blame is attachable to anyone for stopping the truck it is attachable to you?— Seeing McCutcheon stopped the truck under instructions from me I suppose it is. The magistrate: I hope you are not asking these questions, Mr. Brokenshire, with a view to possible civil proceedings?—No, sir. To Senior-Sergeant Turner Collings said he could probably have conducted the test just as well from the other side of the vehicle. Collings asked permission after he left the witness box to point out to the court that persons were entitled to stand on the running board of a car to detect defects. Mr. Brokenshire, who did not call evidence, said the traffic officer had full authority to do what he had done. The regulations said all police officers and inspectors were authorised to see that the Act an J the legulations were observed; Collings was seeing that the brakes were in proper order and McCutcheon was under his directions. Accordingly he submitted that McCutcheon was not the recognised driver of the vehicle. In giving his decision Mr. Woodward said McCutcheon was bound to obey Collings and the word “allow” did not enter into it. ,As regards the charge of failing to report the accident it appeared that there was an offence, and he thought McCutcheon really was the driver and not Collings. McCutcheon was willing to report the accident but relied on Collings’ knowledge in not doing so. The offence was proved but the charge would be dismissed as trivial.