“PERSECUTED” MOTORISTS.

Evening Star, Issue 22145, 27 September 1935, Page 8

“ PERSECUTED” MOTORISTS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l have to thank you for the publicity you have given under the above heading to my protest at the annual meeting of the Automobile Association of Otago. I also thank “P. B. Motorist ” for his endorsement in last night’s ‘ Star.’ Ho deals in humorous vein with some of the absurdities now taking place on our Dunedin streets; but my chief point was the invidiousness of the charge of “ driving at a speed which might have been dangerous to the public.” This clause is sandwiched in between “ reckless driving ” and drunkenness in charge of a car in the Motor Vehicles Act of 1924, and it is surprising, that our legal minds —judicial and counsel—Have not detected the flaw in the phraseology. The words “ might have been ” are essentially hypothetical. Their logical corollary is the phrase “ but was not.” The related set of circumstances which would have made tKe act dangerous did not exist, therefore the danger could not have existed. One could multiply indefinitely the examples, such as “ the mirage in the desert which might have been an oasis ” (but was not), “the dog which might have been run over ” (but was not), “ the football match which might have been won ” (but was not). Almost any example one can think of has its definitely implied nega-

tive, except this intangible and illusive charge under which so many motorists have suffered. Can you imagine a man being arrested because a constable saw Him coming out of an hotel, and the charge against him being “that he might have been drunk?” Not as a personal grievance but as an example I quote my' own experience. When challenged I admitted exceeding the speed limit. The inspector admitted that in qo sense of the word was I driving dangerously. Yet I was charged under this absurdly ambiguous clause, with its “ might have been,” and convicted and fined for dangerous driving”—an offence which the traffic inspector himself admitted I had not committed.

Under certain circumstances, a speed of even 10 miles an hour might be dangerous to the public, but on a clear road with long visibility, it is absurd and unjust to class as such a speed of 35 to 40 miles an hour. It is my intention to bring this matter under the attention of the legal community of the Automobile Association, and I suggest to my fellow motorists, who feel as I do—and I know they are many—that they support me in my effort to have' this anomalous position remedied. I fully recognise that traffic inspectors are required to regulate traffic and to see the laws are kept. But I think the public has a right to demand that they should be men possessing intelligence and tact, and that their attitude to citizens their duty calls on them to accost should be courteous and respectful.—l am, etc., J. H. Hinton. September 27.