ACCIDENT SEQUEL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 247, 30 July 1937, Page 6

ACCIDENT SEQUEL

CHARGES AGAINST MOTORIST. FINED FOR NEGLIGENT DRIVING. INSUFFICIENT HEADLIGHTS. A sequel to a motor accident at Bankside on May 25 was lieard in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr H. Morgan, S.M. Clarence S. Thomas was charged that at Bankside he drove a motor car without lights, drove in a negligent manner and failed to report an accident in which a person had been injured. He pleaded not guilty. Constable Coatsv orth stated that the case arose out of a collision with a cyclist, who was knocked down and rendered unconscious. Lindsay Parkin said that on May 25 he left home at 4.55 p.m. It was dusk and he went to the main road, near his home at Bankside. He was riding a bicycle which had a red reflector and a white mudguard. He thought he would try out the bicycle and went down the road about half a mile. He sa\v two cars going north, the first having only one light. Witness turned back and saw a car going south near the centre of the road and ahead of him. He did not hear any sound behind him and did not see any headlights, but he was struck and knocked down. W itness was unconscious for a time and he suffered a sprained wrist and injured muscles on his right leg. He was sent to Christchurch hospital by the llakaia doctor to have X-ray photographs taken of his wrist. In reply to questions, witness stated that he was trying the bicycle out because he had just fitted new gearing. When he saw the car with one light it was a mile and a half away. There was fairly deep shingle on tiie side of the bitumen. He was about 100 yards from the corner when he was overtaken by a car. He was keeping well over to his correct side because of the south-going car, H. 0. Parkin, father of the previous witness, said he heard the sound of a car travelling north, apparently at a high speed, and then there was a crasH Igoon after, witness’s son was brought home by defendant. Witness addedi that defendant had stated that a car travelling south on the wrong side of the road had struck the boy, and that he should have turned and chased the offending car. The next day he saw the scene of the accident. Marks showed that the car had struck the bicycle, pushed it on to the shingle, dropped it there, went on to the fenceline, ran on and then came right across the road to the incorrect side. It had travelled over 100 feet after hitting the bicycle. Witness advertised for witnesses and received replies. Defendant went to see him and stated that he was prepared to pay the medical expenses and buy a new bicycle for the boy. He asked if witness had received any replies to his advertisement, and said he was surprised the advertisement had been put in. Defendant complained that he had been dazzled by the lights of the car going south. E. S. Ayres, tractor driver, Winchmore. said he was going south by cai and saw a cyclist on the road at Bankside. When hie was about 50 yaids away he saw a car going north strike the cyclist. He saw a car with only parking lights burning, pass the first approaching car. This was the car that had hit the cyclist. As the headlights on this car were not burning, the lights on witness’s car should have helped the other driver to pick up the cyclist. The other car must have been travelling at about 40 miles an hour. The driver later told witness that he did not see the cyclist, as he was preparing to pass witness’s car. Henry James Lamb, labourer, Staveley, said he was 30 or 40 yards from the accident when it occurred. He was going north and Was passed by another car, which had just straightened out again when it hit the cyclist. It was travelling 40 or 50 miles an houi. Witness saw the cyclist till the other car swung in front. The south-bound car was on its correct side. Constable Devine, St. Albans, pioduced a statement made to him by defendant. Constable Coatswortli, Rakaia, pi oduced a plan of the scene of the accident, showing the car marks. The car travelled about 190 feet in a straight line north after hitting the cyclist. For defendant, Mr it. A. Young said that defendant did not see the boy till a fraction of a second before the collision and it was then too late to avoid him. Had the bicycle been carrying a headlamp the beam on the road should have shown the cycle ahead. At tho time, defendant’s nerves were in a bad state and since then he had suffered a breakdown. He knew there was a car behind him and that if he pulled up suddenly there might have been a second collision. That was why he went so far on after the collision. ' There was con- ' flict of evidence regarding the lights on the cars going north. Defendant hacl discussed the questioii with the Chief Traffic Officer at Christchurch and had been told that there was no need to report tho accident if there was no injury. In this case defendant had seen that if there was any injury it was only a sprain, and he had not reported the incident. The car ho used was an old one and he was not doing more than 30 miles an hour. It was difficult at any time to see a cyclist at night and in this case defendant was dazzled by the lights of an approaching car and the) boy was wearing dark clothing. Defendant, in the box, said ho was manager of the Southern Cross Brewery, in Christchurch. He did not consider the slight hurt the hoy suffered was an injury and ho did not report the accident. He had slowed up because of the dazzle of the oncoming car. His lights and brakes were in good ordei. He did not have a certificate of fitness for the car, but had made an appointment for testing the car before the accident. He was somewhat flabbergasted at the time of the accident and had gone on without braking. The headlights and the two parking lights on the car were burning at tho time of the accident. He gave his name and address to the boy’s father after he had taken the boy to his home. He had not said the other car had been in the collision, hut had pointed to the marks on his mudguard. He told the boy’s father he would bear all the expenses. As soon as he saw the advertisement calling for witnesses he went to Parkin’s place, but Mr Parkin was not at home. Witness called again two days

later. He definitely was not doing 50 miles an hour when he passed the other car. His car would not have been capable of that speed. To Constable CoatswortliThe boy did not seem to be more fnan dazed by the accident. He had walked to witness’s car unaided. He denied that he took a risk, and thought he hacl time to get in front of the other ear before he had to pass the south-bound car. To the Magistrate: He had 400 yards in which to see the boy, but the other car’s lights dazzled him. The Magistrate: But Lamb says be was not dazzled by those lights, and you say lie was right behind you. Lamb’s headlights, shining in Ins rear view mirror, also dazzled him, witness added. Ernest Percy Orchard, an employee of the brewery, said lie was in the front seat of the car with defendant. The parking lights were on at first, and later the headlights were switched on. The pace was about 30 miles an hour at the time of the accident. The approaching car had very bright lights, and was travelling so far over that defendant had to move further over to his left. The boy was getting up when witness went back to the scene of the accident. Defendant told the boy s father that he was the driver of the car that struck the boy. At Parkin s farm the' headlights were straightened and they both lit up. To Constable Coatswortli.: They were doing 30 miles an hour all the way, and did not speed up to pass Lamb’s car. Witness was hoping a good look-out, but he did not see the till he was right on the mudguard. He did not think the boy had been injured. The Magistrate said it was clear that Lamb had seen the boy. If defendant’s lights were on, as he said, lie should have been able to. pick up the hoy in the 400 yards that was given to him. The headlights could not liave been on. . „ , , On the first two charges defendant was convicted. , For driving without sufficient headlights defendant was fined £2, with 10s costs. For driving in a negligent manner he was fined £lO. with £1 2s costs and £2 4s lOd witnesses’ expenses. The Magistrate said defendant wits fortunate that he was not facing an indictable charge for killing tue boy. Motorists must be careful, and the punishment must be a deterrent. The charge of failing to report an accident to the police was dismissed, the Magistrate stating that it was a borderline case. There was some doubt that it was such «n accident that should be reported to the police. Defendant had seen the boy walk to the car and had seen him at his home, and had a doubt in his mind on the point, while the boy’s parents had apparently hot thought he was injured.. All the boy complained of was his leg and his wrist, and there was nothing to show that the wrist was seriously injured. |