WORKING OF MOTOR REGULATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1931, Page 8

WORKING OF MOTOR REGULATIONS

GOOD PURPOSE - SERVED. FEWER CASES COMING TO COURT. CHEISTC'HURCH, June 35. People are at last beginning to realise that tht>re is a Motor Vehicles Act and that in breaking the provisions of that Act they are committing serious offences. That is the opinion expressed by an eminent Christchurch legal authoriy, who keeps a close watcii on the cases which come - up for decision before the magistrates of the city. “There are some people,” he said, “on whom examples 01 punishment and penalty have little effect. That is a class always willing to take a risk. AVhen they are caught and fined or imprisoned, the deterrent is good, b .l not till then do they fall into line. On

the other hand, the great majority are, judging by the eases that come before the courts, lulling in with the spirit of the regulations. The result is excel lent. There are far fewer prosecutions following collisions and, of those that do come up, the majority do not contest the cases. Some do, but their grounds for defence are generally good. ’ ’

ERRORS OF JUDGMENT. Of those cases now in the majority, he pointed out, the cause of the accident was probably a genuine error of > judgment. A man might think h. could easily got across in Gout of a vehicle approaching from the right; that there was no possibility of an accident. Then when the accident occurred it was proved that his judgment was wrong and he was guilty off a breach of the regulations. However, breaches of the off side” rule, cutting corners and similar breaches which lead to accidents were becoming increasingly ran. The most serious offence that could be committed under the Act was nog.i gently driving so as to cause dentil. The matter must lie dealt with by a jury and in many cases the jury would take a lenient view of the matter, on the obvious ground that there was no intention to cause death on the part of accused. CRIMINAL OFFENCES. “People cannot realis ,” s id tl e per- ( son interviewed, “that in committing such breaches of the Act they are making themselves criminals just as surely as if they committed burglary or aggravated assault. The man who is drunk in charge of a car or the man who drives in a dangerous or negligent manner is a criminal. It is an ugly word, but unde!- the Act that is the position. Most people would be shocked when faced 1 with a dangerous driving charge, to learn that they are liable to imprisonment.” For being clnink in charge of a car. or for driving in a manner dangerous to the public,’ the maximum penalty provided is a fine of £IOO or imprisonment for three months. Another serious offence, that of driving straight away after an accident in which a person may have been seriously injured, is regarded in legal circles as equally bad; but the maximum penalty is a £2O fine, with no provision for sunii in.my imprisonment. ! DESERVING OF GAOL. I “ That is one of the most callous and j brutal things a man can do.” was the comment on that offence. “There are cases where perhaps a mail was on the point of death and the other motorist speeded away, where the ‘hit and run’ driver should have had nothing less than a stiff term of gaol; yet it cannot be done.”

i One significant feature of a study of Court records, it was said, was the •fact that in only one or two cases had a man dealt with tor one of the more serious offences under the Act, appeared in Court again on a similar charge. That would indicate that the deterrent was strong ) for the statement applied over 'four years. ; The conclusion to be drawn was that the regulations, now that they were accepted generally by motorists, were srving thir purpose well.