OF INTEREST TO MOTORISTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 3998, 17 September 1929, Page 3

OF INTEREST TO MOTORISTS.

THE “OFF-SIDE” RULE'ON

HIGHWAY'S

MAIN ROAD TRAFFIC MUST

GIVE WAY.

In the congse of a reserved judgment delivered last week in a Palmerston North civil action, 'his Honour, Mr. Justice Smith, makes interesting reference to the application of the often quoted and misunderstood “off-side” rule of the motor regulations. The rule (No. 13) states:— Every driver of a motor vehicle, when approaching any intersection the traffic at which is not for the time being controlled by a police officer or traffic inspector, and to which any other vehicle is approaching so that if both continued on their course there would be a possibility of collision, shall, if such vehicle "is approaching from his right or any direction, give way to such other.vehicle and allow the same to pass before him, and if necessary for that purpose, stop his vehicle. No driver of a motor vehicle shall increase the-speed of his vehicle when approaching any intersection under the circumstances set out in 'this clause.” His Honour stated that these regulations appeared to - apply at present to the- whole of New Zealand and regulations made by any local authority relating to- motor vehicles were subject to the regulations under the Act.

It was clear then, that regulation 13 had a wide operation and applied to all roads and streets . whether main or side, and whether in town, city, or country. The effect of its operation, however, raised a more difficult question. It was a statutory traffic regulation but at the same time bis Honour held that the breach of it could give no right of action to the person aggrieved, by virtue merely of the .’breach. In relation to the present regulation his Honour considered that the duty imposed upon motorists was a. public duty only. The regulation conferred no rights on a special class of the public but was made for motorists and pedestrians alike. Furthermore it was clear that in civil actions based on negligence, the failure to observe the rule of the road, might be justified by' circumstances although no such exemption was provided by the terms of the regulation itself. “The regulation does not confer upon any party aggrieved, a civil right of action by virtue -merely of a breach thereof. The remedy of the breach is a police remedy viz., the penalty provided by the regulations,” says his Honour, summing up the position. It did not follow, however, that the breach of . a traffic regulation might not be used as evidence of negligence in a civil action.

“Whelre the distinction |between a “main” and a “side” road exists,” continued his Honour, “if the offside rule is applied, it is clear that main road traffic must give way |to side road traffic approaching from the right and with which._there is a possibility of collision; and if necessary for that purpose, must stop. I see* no escape from this construction. It appears to be clearly intended to lay down a definite rule. But difficulty-arises in its application. Main road traffic is entitled to move at a 1 good speed and bitumen and concrete highways are intended to carry fast-moving traffic. Yet where the intersection is . reasonably visible to a driver on a main road or where he should reasonably know of its existence, it is, I think, his duty to take steps to observe this rule should e possibility of arise. * Where the intersection is'not so visible, or whore the driver is reasonably unaware of its existence,, he is not reasonably in a position to fake steps to observe the rule. Then whatever may be the driver’s position in a police court, he has not committed a wilful or negligent breach of' the rule, and a breach of it cannot be used as prim a facie evidence against him. The test of wilful on’ negligent breach of the rule must depend on the circumstances in each case. Where the view of an intersection is clear, and drivers know there is, or likely to be traffic, the driver approaching from a side road on the right of a driver on a main road, may be entitled to assume that the main road driver will give way. Referring to the particular case in question his Honour said: — “I do not think that plaintiff’s driver, as a side (road driver, had any right to assume that the “offside”' rule would necessarily he observed by a main road driver passing along this particular main highway through the country. That is not, it appears to me, a reasonable assumption to make. Until the “off-side’’ rule is more emphatically established by custom and usage on country roads, I do not think the same assumption can he made as a,‘driver in a city street might make. A side road driver in the country must act reasonably and from the point of view of his civil liability, slow up so as 'to be able to avoid traffic to his right or to his left.”