WHEN IS THE RAILWAY LINE CLEAR?

Chronicle (Levin), 15 April 1946, Page 4

WHEN IS THE RAILWAY LINE CLEAR?

Court RuJiag lor When is the railway line clear for motorists to cross in fhe face of" an approaching train was the interesting point Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., decided in the Levin Magistrate's Court last week, and he held .as. a matter of law. that the traiii would have to be at least half a •mile from the crossing. He was giving reserved decision in respect of a charge brought up at. the previous sittfng agajnst Franeis .George Blenkir-on for crossing the railway line in Queen Street on Oct.ober 3,0 last when it was not olear. The facts of the case were that on October 30 last Trafhc Insp.ect.or Kehoe, who was on duty in Queen Street, Levin, going in a •westerly direction towards the railway level crossing at which there are warning lights and bells, obServed that these were operating. He sfopped • and: then saw the defendant's car approaching from the opposite.side, travelling !at about 15 mjles per hour. In the face of the warning bells and lights, defendant crossed the line. . At that moment a last passenger "train was approaching

the crossing, and the normal time it | took from the. time the bells an.d j lights operated to the time the train | passes over the crossing was fortythree seeonds. The train actu.ally passed the crossing just after thej defendant had crossed. Defendant] admitted 'quite frankly that. thej bells and lights were operating,, but i that he was paying att.ention to'aj horse, which was being led in thej same direction and failed to stop i before crossing the line. At this | particular crossing a motpirist keep- J ing a prqper lookout eould see ai train approaching for more than j half a mile from the crossing siuQei the line was straight. Earlier decision on the matter was deferred in view 'of the factl that His Worship doubted whetherj he had jurisdiction to deal with itj in the light of the decisions ofj Messrs. R. C. Abernethy and T. E.j Maunsell, S.M.'s, in two other cases. : They had held in these that the Act under which the charge was brought was impliedly repealed oy an amendment to the main Act, j which both Magistrate's interpreted to imply that a railway line was clear "when there is no possibility of collision on the crossing under any reasonably conceivable circumstances." After careful consideration of the Itwo decisions, Mr. Goulding said that with the greatest resp.eot for them he was unable to agree. He held the view that the Act fixed a specified distanee of half a mile from a level crossing as a danger distanee within which, if a train was approaching such crossing to the knowledge of any person Wishing to, cross the line, e.ither in a vehicle or to drive animals aorbss the line, then such person was forbidden to cross the line. Having regard to the interpretation arrived at, His Worship ent.ered a conviction and defendant was fined £3,. with costs 10s.