CATCHING MOTORISTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 337, 24 April 1928, Page 9

CATCHING MOTORISTS

METHODS CRITICISED CASE AT PAPAKURA (From Our Own Correspondent) PAPAKURA, Monday. An admission that the method used in timing motorists through “traps” at Papakura would not be permitted in England, was made in the Papakura Magistrate’s Court to-day by "William White, who recently commenced his duties as traffic inspector to the Papakura Town Board. At the same time he was not prepared to comment as to the accuracy of the Papakura methods. It was explained that at Papakura the inspector and an assistant stood at one end of a quarter-mile length of road, and watched a car, coming into the other end. As the car entered the measured distance the inspector and his assistant started their stopwatches and stopped them as the car passed out of the length. In England one man was stationed at each end of the measured distance, with a third man further on to stop the motorist if his time showed the speed was too fast, and the motorist given notice of his offence by the third man. The magistrate, Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., said this was very much more satisfactory than the system used here, as by the English system the motorist got immediate notice of the offence instead of notice days afterwards, when, perhaps, it was difficult for the motorist to accurately recall his speed. Mr. White intimated he had continued the old method used at Papakura, but hoped to institute the “threeman” system which he had operated in England. The particular case in which these remarks were made was that in which George G. Sherlaw (Mr. Holmden) was charged with driving at a dangerous speed oil the Great South Road, Papakura. on March 17. The inspector gave the speed as 36 miles an hour. Sherlaw said he had almost stopped to avoid a motor-cycle, when nearing the trap, and could not have regained sufficient speed to average 36 miles an hour. He was watching both sides of the road past intersections, and had the car under complete control. There was no other traffic on that particular length of the road at the time. The case was dismissed, also a case against E. C. Dunton, where there was no proof that the defendant was the driver. In a charge against A. E. Allen, where the town board had duplicated a summons against the defendant who already had been fined for the same offence, the board was ordered to pay Allen’s costs. Fines imposed in other cases were as follow: .T. Thomson, 36 miles, £1; P. Field, 36 miles, £1; E. Spencer 37 miles, £l, I. S C. Vallance, ..4 miles, IDs, IT. Cliff, 37 miles, 10s: T. H. Watts, 37 miles, £1; "B Facoory, 35 miles, £2; L. N. Harding 1 , 36 miles £3; G. E. Jones, 32 miles, £2; W O’Donnell, 32 miles, £2; H. Macaskill. 36 miles. £2: A. E. Stuart, 36 miles, £1- tlie magistrate varied the lines according to the degree of danger to the public revealed by each case.