DANGEROUS DRIVING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5081, 28 January 1927, Page 3

DANGEROUS DRIVING.

CAR AND LORRY COLLIDE. lorry driver fined. At the Police Court yesWday morning, before Magistrate F. W. Platts, Joseph Peter Mitchell, contractor, Paeroa (Mr E. A. Porritt), was charged with, on December 4, recklessly or negligently driving a motor lorry on Wilson's Road, Netherton, in a manner dangerous to the . public. A ’further charge was also preferred for not keeping to the lefthand side of the road when passing a motor-car driven by Edward James Aberhart. Accused pleaded not guilty. Edward J. Aberhart, traveller, Hamilton, said that he was proceeding from Netherton to Paeroa on the day in question. When travelling along Wilson’s Road, and when approaching Daley’s bridge, which had a drop df from 6in to Bin, the motor lorry was about 1% chains the. other side of the bridge. The length o’f the bridge was about 30ft, but it was a single-vehicle only. He had applied his brakes, as he. saw) that the defendant showed no signs df pulling up. The bridge was negotiated safely, but the, motor lorry proceeded onward and struck his c,ar with considerable force. The speed of the lorry did not appear to be unduly excessive. The force of the, impact impaled the left wheel of the car on the front spring of the. lorry. In conversation with the defendant after* the incident the defendant said that he could not brake his car sufficient-, ly on account of there being two tons of coal on the lorry. The,re were no ■sjkid or other marks to show that the defendant had applied his brakes. The road was clear to both parties for a long distance. Had defendant stopped or eased up witness said he could have got through safely. The' distance from the angle of the bridge, to where the car was stopped was about 22ft. There was ample room for two vehicles to pass at either end of the bridge, but defendant hung to the centre’ of the road. There was no danger to the lorry if defendant had left the crown of .thq road. There were .two courses open to' the defendant, in that he could have pulled up or else pulled on to. one side of the road. To Mr Porritt witness said that his car was a new one and .the brakes, were in good order. He was travelling at about 12 miles an hour. Defendant had offered to tow the car to a garage after the collision occurred. He claimed that he had the right to cross the bridge first because he was nearer to it than the defendant. No sign had been given by defendant as to who should cross the bridge first, but defendant appeared to have his head dowif' as ff attempting to apply his brakes. There was considerable damage done car, and he had lost four days as, the result. Constable. McClinchy stated that he had been apprised of the accident by Aberhart. An examination of the car showed that a hole had been knocked in the radiator, and the left mudguard and under-structure, were damaged. Witness detailed the taking of various measurements on the bridge and its approaches. He saw defendant later in the day, when defendant contended that he should have had the right df the road on account of the load on his lorry. Joseph P. Mitchell, defendant stated that he was driving a two-ton lorry, which, with the coal, made a total of about four tons, on the day in question. The, road was straight and had a good surface. The speed at the time was between 10 and 12 miles an hour, but he estimated that Aberhart was travelling at about 25 miles an hour. Taking into consideration the relative speeds of the two vehicles, he contended that he had the right to cros*s the bridge. Noticing that the. car driver showed no signs of slackening speed, he depressed the clutch on his lorry, and the engine was disengaged at the time, o’f the impact. He also signalled that he was stopping the lorry. He saw that a collision was inevitable and he applied his brakes, as Aberhart showed no signs df slackening the pace of the car. The collision took place on the bridge about 10ft from the end at which he entered. The momentum df the lorry pushed the light car backwards along the bridge for about 'four or five. feet. In conversation after the accident Aberhart told him * that he was in a hurry to return to Hamilton. Rather than delay him •further witness said that he suggested that Aberhart should accept a lift 'from a passing motorist and he would tow the damaged car. to Paeroa for repairs. To Senior-Sergeant Maclean defendant reiterated that his lorry, being out of gear, had travelled over three chains under its own weight on momentum. Senior-Sergeant Maclean said that - considerable petrol could be saved with a lorry like his. Defendant added that he had travelled 15ft after applying his brakes, The Magistrate said that it appeared to be fairly clear that neither party was travelling at an excessive speed. The defendant had attempted to get on to the bridge, although he knew there was no room 'for two vehicles to pass. The defendant assumed that he had the right to the bridge, but in that contention he was wrong, and had undoubtedly committed an error of judgment. There appeared to have been a. race for "the bridge, and when the defendant saw that Aberhart was on or very close to the bridge he should have pulled up. It should have been quite, possible to stop his lorry within a distance of three, chains, as shown in the evidence. The defendant would be convicted of reckless driving and fined £3, with costs totalling £1 9s lOd. The second charge of be ! ng on the wrong side o’f the rbad was dismissed.