INQUIRY ADJOURNED

Waipa Post, Volume 43, Issue 3329, 30 July 1931, Page 5

INQUIRY ADJOURNED

OHAUPO ROAD FATALITY.

EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER EYEWITNESS.

After we went to press on Tuesday afternoon the inquiry was continued into the death of Edward James Park, a motor cyclist of Waihou, who was killed in a collision with a light Ford truck driven' by James Martin, the previous afternoon, at Grigg’s Corner, Ohaupo Road. Mr G. A. Empson presided as coroner.

As reported last issue, James Sanderson, in evidence, said that he was walking towards Hamilton with his mate, John Master ton, and saw the collision.

After the luncheon adjournment, during which time the coroner motored to the scene of the fatality to see for himself and more clearly understand the evidence as to the position of the vehicles when the collision occurred.

Mr C. G. Downes appeared to watch Mr Martin’s interests. John Patrick Masterton gave corro,borative evidence, adding that the first view he obtained of the truck was when the collision occurred. He was certain that the cyclist was not at any time over on the wrong side of the road. The suddenness of the impact prevented either vehicle from avoiding the collision. Taking the nature of the road into consideration — the surface, camber, and contourwitness had no hesitation in stating that the truck driver’s speed was excessive. Witness did not hear any warning sounded. The noise or clatter of the cycle was such as should have been heard by the truck driver. Witness and his companion were not more than 100 yards away when the collision occurred, and they had a perfect view of the collision, which was a head-on one, the cycle swinging round after being hit, and there was a broadside impact. He could not account for Park’s body not beingflung forward on top of the truck. The left-hand head-lamp of the truck was smashed and bent in toward the radiator. The road was fairly good, with some loose metal just a few feet from the point of impact. The right front wheel of the lorry was about 2 feet over the centre-line of the road, but the rear part of the .car was not paralled with the road line. He did not pose as a judge of motoring speed, but considered from various aspects that the truck was travelling at 40 miles per hour. Witness was not a motor driver, and could not say how far a car, driven at that speed, would normally travel after the brakes were applied. To Mr Preston: The truck driver and his companion "had moved the broken cycle off the road before the driver called to witness and his companion to telephone for the police. There were about 4 feet of loose metal on the cyclist’s side of the road. The rest of the road surface was quite good. One c ’reason for his statement that the truck was travelling fast was that Park was thrown so far. The cause of the truck being stopped in about 5 feet after the impact was that the cycle was crumpled up and jammed underneath it. The front of the cycle seemed to mount the forepart of the truck, fall back, and was then dragged under it. The road was tom up by the dragging of the cycle. To Mr Downes: When the cyclist overtook witness and his companion they were walking on the loose metal, having stepped aside to allow him .to pass. They did not lose sight of Park right up to the point of collision. Deceased was not travelling fast at all, and he had room to pass the truck had he elected to keep closer in to the edge. That would have meant his traversing the loose metal. The loose metal did not extend right to the cen-tre-line, and Park had been keeping to the edge of the loose metal. Considered the left-hand head-light of the lorry had been damaged by contact with the cycle as the latter swung round after the first impact. Marks found afterwards near the centre of the road were caused by the cycle being’ dragged. The slewing of the cycle after the first impact probably caused the fracture of Park’s right leg. He was confident the cause of the collision was that the truck was travelling too fast. At this stage the coroner remarked that the truck’s brakes were applied before the crest of the slight rise was reached. Continuing, Masterton said Park could not have altered his course to pass safely on the other side of the truck, as the truck approached so suddenly. When he first saw the cyclist he could not see the truck, which came into view practically only at the moment of impact. There was no other traffic about and nothing to divert his attention from the cyclist travelling ahead of him. Did not believe that Park steered over to his wrong side. To Mr Preston: Examined the cycle later, and the front fork was snapped clean from the frame, this being quite consistent with the effect of a headon collision. The cycle wheels were buckled, besides damage to other parts; this was due to c the machine being struck side-on and run over. The cyclist was thrown back along the road about 20 feet, still on the metal, but rather towards his own side o£ the road. To the police: Witness said he did not notice any special marks of the cycle on the road after the collision. To the coroner: He estimated the speed of the truck on the distance the man was flung and on the distance the truck travelled after the brakes were applied. He was not a motorist, but formed the opinion that the truck was travelling too fast at a corner. Constable Forsyth then applied for an adjournment of the inquest, to enable the police to make further inquiries. This was agreed to.

On inquiry this morning, Constable Forsyth said that no date had yet been fixed for the resumption of the inquest.