FINE IMPOSED FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 25, 22 September 1931, Page 4

FINE IMPOSED FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING

KU I RAU ACCIDENT traffic authorities Allege high speed; DRIVER'S DENIAL FAILS. A charge of dangerqus driving, arising out of an accidejit which occurred beside the Kuirau pool during the early hours of the morning of August 2, was heard before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M.," in the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Thomas Mau, a bus-driver of Rotorua, charged by the borough traffic authorities, was convicted of dangerous . driving and fined £1. The accident out of whieh the charge arose was one which aroused some interest, as when Mau's car went off the road- it very nearly came to rest in the waters of th.e hot pool. A portion of the fence surrounding the pool was carried away and residents living nearhy were aroused by the crash. The borough traffic authorities, for whom Mr'. J. D. Davys appeared, alleged that the accident had been caused by Mau driving at a dangerous speed; this the defendant denied, and called evidence of a passenger, Cyril Smith, to support his statement that the accident had been caused by the car striking a eulvert when defendant pulled too far over to the lefthand side of the road in order to negotiate the corner carefully. After hearing evidence in support of the charge, and evidence for the defenee led by Mr. R. Potter, tbe magistrate said he had no doubt in his mind that Mau was travelling at a dangerous sneed.

Opening his case, Mr. Davys said that three witnesses who were on the scene inrmediately after the accident, agreed that the speed of the car driven by Mau must have been excessive. The facts pointed to the accident having been caused by Mau's furious driving. Case for the Borough. The borough traffic inspector, David Mario* Ford, said that when he had interviewed Mau the latter had claimed that he was travelling only between 25 and 30 miles an hour at the time of the accident. Mau admitted that he was the driver of the car at the time. ^There was a notice plainly indicating the borough boundary and the mileage. In reply to Mr. Potter, the inspector admitted that Mau did not attempt to avoid him when he interviewed him after the accident. Witnes knew that there was a certain amount of loose metal in the vicinity of the Kuirau pool and it might be possible for a car of the type driven by Mau to skid in this metal. The inspector also admitted that it was likely that if a car travelling at a high speed was suddenly pulled up, a person in the frent seat and not behind the driving wheel, would be thrown forward and break the windscreen. He knew that Mr. Smith, who was the passenger in this case, had not suffered in this manner. According to the inspector the cairn question was not particularly noisy, although it was not a recent model. Awakened by Noise. Franeis Albert Gainsford, surveyor, of Rotorua, said that he lived in the vicinity of the scene of the accident. At about 3 o'clock on the Sunday morning in question he was awakened by the noise of a car approaching at a high speed and formed the impression that unless speed was reduced the car could not negotiate the corner into Ranolf St. or by Lake House.. He lay in bed and awaited events, but the car did not reach the corner; it crashed into the picket fence apposite witness' house. When witness and his son, whom he called, arrived on the scene, the car was through the fence and facing almost in the direction from which it had come. Mau and Smith, the two occupants of the car, were standing near and were uninjured. Mr. Colin Castleton, a neighbour, was also present. According to the witness, the fence was of a substantial nature. Struck Culvert. Answering Mr. Davys, the witness said that the following morning he examined marks on the road, which indicated that the front wheels of the car had struck a culvert in front of a private house and that the machine had not been pulled up for five chains beyond this point. Other marks showed that the car had swerved back and across the road before it came to rest. His definite impression, from the marks on the road and the sound of the car, was that it had been driven at a high speed. Not Tricky Surface. Mr. Gainsford would not agree with Mr. Potter that the surface of the road was tricky. There. were patches of \screenings on it which gave quite a good grip. He would not agree that the picket fence was not substantial. Mr. Potter: You are prepared to swear from what you learned, that this car was travelling at an excessive speed? That is definitely fixed in my mind. That is only your own impression, though? Yes, but it is a very definite impression. Witness agreed that there was no traffic about at the time; the road was clear and the night was still and moonlight. It was possible that noise might tend to be exaggerated under these cii'cumstances. He contended, however, that the time the car had taken to come to rest had left him with the definite impression that it was travelling at a high speed. "Dazzled by Light." The son of the previous witness, Arthur Percy Gainsford, said that he was awakened by fiis father and went ' outside after the accident. Smith, ; who was standing by, remarked to him that they had been dazzled by the light. Witness took it that by this he meant a street light further up tbe road. As a motorist, witness said he certainly . thought that the car must have been travelling at a speed of 3.0 m.p.h. and upwards. He form-

ed this impression from the position in which the car was resting. To, Mr. Potter, witness admitted that he had been driving a car for only 18 mo'nths, but said that he thought he was competent to form his opinion of tfie car's speed. Tracks Examined. Evidence regarding an inspection he had made of the tracks, following the accident, was given by John Ernsdale, Rotorua, borough foreman. He said the tracks showed that it was approximately three chains from the culvert which the car had struck, to the place where it had crashed through the fence. He' could see no reason why the car should have struck the culvert, which was right at the side of the road. Witness agreed with Mr. Potter that there would be a certain amount of loose metal on the road at the time. His measurements showed that defendant's car had carried away 54 feet of fence where it broke through. This closed the case for the borough, which Mr. Davys concluded by putting in the regulations. Case for the Defenee. Mr. Potter moved for a dismissal of the case. The charge rested solely upon the evidence of Mr. Gainsford, sen., which, counsel submitted, was purely an expression of opinion. Mau had not attempted to hide anything and was still driving for the Rotorua Bus Co,

His Worship said there was a case to answer and Mr. Potter pnt the defendant in the box. Mau admitted that on the morning in question an accident had occurred. This had been caused by his striking an obstaele on the side of the road which had caused the car to swerve and crash through the fence. The dumbiron striking one of the posts of the fence had caused .the machine to swing round in the direction from which it had been coming. He had struck the culvert through getting too far over on the side of the road •n order to negotiate the corner carefully and obtain visibility through steam which drifted across from the pool. He denied that he was driving at a high speed and said that he had gone to the police sergeant's house immediately after the accident to report the matter, but had been unable to make anyone hear. Smith and himself were the only persons in the car and they were returning to Rotorua from Ngongotaha. Varying Speeds. In reply to Mr. Davys, Mau said it took him about half an hour to come from Ngongotaha to the Utuhina bridge. He was travelling at speeds varying from 12 to 25, m.p.h. until he reached the bridge. He. slackened up after he entered the borough, but admitted he was doing 25 to 30 m.p.h. before he struck the culvert. He contended that the distance from this culvert to the place where he went through the fence was only 38 yards. Mr. Davys: If you were travelling slowly, as you say you were, how can you account for the fact that you went 38 yards before you pulled up? A car can coast a long way. The magistrate enquired whether defendant took his foot right off the throttle when he struck the culvert, but when Mau said that he was not quite sure whether he had taken his foot right off or not, his Worship said he did not think under these circumstances the car should have coasted 38 yards if defendant was travelling at the speed he claimed. To Mr. Davys, Mau said his object in pulling right over to his left was to avoid the possibility of an accident with traffic coming round the corner. Clouds of Steam. Cyril Smith, the passenger in the car, said that as they approached the Kuirau pool they noticed clouds of steam coming across the road. Mau pulled off to his left hand side when he struck some obstacle, which threw the car across the road. Defendant tried to pull the car back to the centre of the road, but the wheels would not hold in the loose metal and the car went into the drain. If they had been travelling fast someone would have been hurt, but this was not the case. In witness' opittion, the accident was caused by Mau being a little over-cautious in pulling too far over to his left. To Mr. Davys, witness said that they had passed two intersections on the borough side of the bridge at approximately 25 m.p.h. Roy Cavanagh, taxi-driver, of Rotorua, said he knew from his own experience that often gusts of steam would sweep across the road from the Kuirau pool. Mr. Potter was proceeding to call further evidence on this point when Mr. Davys said it would be admitted, and counsel for the defenee rested his case. Not Impressed. Mr. Davys pointed out that on his own evidence defendant had exceeded the borough speed iimit of 15 m.p.h. across two intersections, and also the limit within the borough. Mr. Potter submitted that there was a eonsiderable element of doubt in the matter and Mau was entitled to the henefit of that doubt. The fact that Mau was still in his employment as a bus-driver spoke for itself. He could not retain that employment if he was a dangerous driver. The magistrate said that he was not impressed with the evidence for the defenee and added that he had no doubt Mau was driving in a dangerous manner. If he had been travelling at between 25 and 30 m.p.h., as he claimed, the car would not have swerved all over the road. Mau would be fined £1 with costs and witnesses' expenses against him.