NEW RULE NEEDED

Hokitika Guardian, 4 May 1926, Page 4

NEW RULE NEEDED

TRAFFIC AT INTERSECTIONS. AUCKLAND, May 2. The necessity for a traffic rule for the guidance of motor-vehicles meeting at an intersection was mentioned by Mr R. AY. M’Keau, S.M., in delivering Ids reserved judgment in a collision ease, in the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate pointed out that at present confusion existed, as the law required both drivers to exorcise equal care when meeting at an intersection, but avoided giving one.driver the right of way. Consequently all drivers assumed the right to hold their course. The ease arose out of proceedings taken by .1. P. Stevenson against AA'illi:iin Foully for damages, arising out of a motor collision in Broadway, New market. Defendant counter-claimed, the damage ill both eases being only a few pounds. There were counterallegations of negligence. The question of privileges of main road traffic being raised in reviewing the circumstances, the Magistrate said that the plaintiff had been driving along Broadway toward the city, at from twelve to fifteen miles an hour. Defendant was turning 1 1 is ear from Morrow Street .into Broadway at a' walking pace, having sounded the horn. Plaintiff did not see defendant until the ears collided, but defendant had seen plaintiff's ear approaching. Eaeli ear sustained damage to one mudguard. For the plaintiff' il Iliad been contended that a “main road” rule placed the onus of giving way oil to traffic emerging from side streets. "This is not known ill English Taw. and there is nothing to suggest that the duty of avoiding a collision is

cast on the driver entering a main road,” said the .Magistrate. I J la i tit if i' had tailed to keep a look-out such as was required at intersections. On the other hand, defendant had seen plain tiff apiiroaching and could have avoided a collision liv stopping. Both par ties had hoen negligent, and consequently neither claim could succeed. Dealing with the causes of collisions at corners, .Mr M’Kean said: “It is unfortunate that the various automobile associations throughout New Zealand do not agree on some rule which would reduce the frequency of collisions at intersections. There is a difference of opinion as to whether a driver should give way to a car approaching from his right or his left. I think that the car to give way should he the car which 'has the other I car on its left. The French rule is I that if two cars approach a crossing I at the same time, the one advancing to the other driver’s right should he given, preference, whatever may be the relative width of the roads. As the ordinary rule of the road in France is opposite to our own we could reverse the rule, and if there was a large body of opinion it might be made the basis for legislation.” The points raised by My M’Kean had recently been the subject of much discussion in Great -Britain, where a rule lor precedence has been advocated by automobile associations. The rule that a driver must give way to a vehicle approaching on his right is applied to traffic in France, and, although the English rule of the road is to keep to the lett i investigation has resulted in the recommendation that the “offside rule ” in England should be the same as in France. In this respect Mr M’Ken'n, an experienced motorist, differs from the proposed English measure. He is of opinion that the piece deuce should he the reverse. The principle is. however, the same, and either way would ensure unanimity. The whole intention of the “off-side rule ” is to abolish confusion and definitely decree that one driver shall yield. Recently, Mr F. K. Hunt. S.M., also n keen motorist, endorsed the “offside rule,” and suggested that it might he applied to New Zealand. Mr Hunt’s view was that the car on the right should take precedence as in France, since the driver sits on the right-hand side of his car. and when approaching a corner has a lietter vision to the right.