NEGLIGENT DRIVING CHARGES.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 289, 23 May 1929, Page 5

NEGLIGENT DRIVING CHARGES.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION,

Motor Cyclist Fined. A sequel to a recent collision on the Putaruru-Arapuni road was unfolded at the May sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Putaruru before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., on Thursday. C. E. Newton and Francis J. Nay! or, the driv" .rs of the motor lorry and motor -yele, were charged with, firstly, negligently driving on "the road in question; and, secondly, •with failing to g'~.e notice of the approach of their vehicles by means ■of their warning ueviees in a reasonable and sufficient manner. The second charge was withdrawn in the case of Naylor, ar.d an alternative charge of operating a motor ■cycle without a warning device being I attached thereto was allowed to : stand. Mr. W. J. King appeared for Newton and Mr. J. R. O. Lochhead for Naylor. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the negligent driving charge.

As the cases arose out of the same set of circumstances, it was agreed to take the cases together. Horace V. Kerr, surveyor, deposed to remembering the date of the accident, as he was riding in the truck with Newton at the time, which would be about 4.30 p.m. When approaching a corner about two and a-half miles from Putaruru they passed a horse-drawn waggon proceeding at a walking pace. After passing this vehicle Newton was getting back on to his correct side of the road when a motor cycle with a lady passenger on the pillon came round thq comer. The truck’s speed, witness estimated to be about 15 miles per Hour, and the motor cycle at a speed of between 25 to 30 miles Per hour. When Newton .first saw the cycle coming it would be about 90 feet away, and he (Newton) pulled sharply round to the left and put on the brakes. The rider of the ■cycle, when he "saw the truck, swerved at first to the wrong side of the road and back again to the left. The cycle struck the front right hand mudguard of the truck. Both those fcn the-cycle were thrown to the ground and rendered unconscious.. The truck, which was still moving when the cvcle it. finished up on the bank. Witness at this stage ■explained the positions on a plan that he had made.

Continuing, the witness said that :when they passed the waggon no other vehicle was in sight. It would not have been reasonable for the truck to have fallen in behind the horse-drawn waggon. The truck was 20ft to 30ft past the waggon when the collision took place. Newton applied his brakes. There was ample room for the cyclist to remain on the bitumen and pass on the left. When he first saw the cyclist at 90ft away, the cyclist was on the bitumen. Had he remained in this position an accident, in witness’ opinion would not have occurred. The corner was fairly heavily hanked. To Mr. Lochhead: The clay filling -on the side of the road was roue-h. In emergency, this portion of the road could, be used.

To the police: When he first saw the cycle coming Newton was on the wrong side of thetjoad, 1 ' Johh Henry Neames, Putaruru, gave evidence to the effect that on the date of the accident he was coming to Putaruru. He remembered a truck passing, and he could also see a motor cyclist approaching, and he was expecting him. The" collision took place when they were a clear 18ft past the witness. Newton was on the wrong side of the road, and he considered that he saw the cyclist before Newton, The lorry’s speed he estimated to be 15 miles an hour.--. He considered that the cause of the accident was due to Newton being on the wrong side of the road. He did not expect Newton to pass where he did. To Mr. Lochhead: Witness Considered the corner where the collision took place a dangerous one. The impact occurred practically on the corner. Witness anticipated trouble, for he did not see how they could pass at that juncture safely. The motor cyclist was on his right side of the road. To Mr. King, the witness denied Saying that the motor cyclist had lost his head, or the control of his machine. He maintained that the bend was; a dangerous one. If the rocitor cyck's't had carried on at the .edge pf,..the- bithmen he probably would have got past safely, but it would have been a “close go.” Mr. King said that the chief point against Newton was that he passed the waggon on this particular bend,

but there was nothing in the regulations to say that to do so on a bend of this nature was to commit an offence. Regulation No. 11 stated that this applied to roads where the direction was 90 degrees, whereas this road was only 45 degrees. If Naylor’s action in passing Neames’ waggon was not negligent, then he

did everything possible to avert an accident. The cyclist did not keep as far to the left of the road as was desirable. He could have avoided the accident had he kept to the position when first seen by the witness Kerr 90ft away. Counsel contended that the police case did not substantiate negligent driving, but the Magistrate held that a prima facie case had been established. Charles Edward Newton, one of the defendants and driver of the truck, a two-ton lorry, gave evidence along similar lines to that given by Kerr, stating that he saw the cyclist as soon as it was possible to see him. He did not consider it dangerous to pass the waggon. He did everything in his power to avoid the accident, and had the cyclist continued on the course he was taking when first seen there would not have been an accident.

Mr. J. R. O. Lochhead, for the defendant Naylor, said that both Neames and Kerr were definite that when he first came into view Naylor was on his right side of the road. Francis J. Naylor, the driver of the motor cycle, said that he was an employee Of the Public Works Department, and that on the date of the accident he on rounding the comer saw Newton and Neames abreast of each other. He knew that if he applied the brakes to his motor cy-le he would have skidded and gone in to the lorry, as there was no room to pull up. He had the lorry or the waggon to pick from, and he steered ;o. the right. This concluded the cases, and the Magistrate ’said that he was not satisfied that Newton was guilty of negligent driving. The o.nly negligence displayed was that of passing '■.he waggon on approaching a comer. This corner had a fairly wide angle, and the regulations re the same is not a standard of care. He (the Maigstrate) was satisfied from the evidence of Kerr that Newton, in nassing the waggon, had no reason to expect any other traffic. On the other hand Naylor was guilty of negligence in that he was not keeping a proper look-out. He was also travelling at too great a speed. The case against Newton was dis- j missed, whilst Naylor would be convicted and fined £1 and costs, , the Magistrate agreeing with Mr.- Lochhead that Naylor had suffered-as a result of the accident. In the case to which the defendants had pleaded guilty a fine of 10s and costs was inflicted on Newton, whilst Naylor was convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s.