CARE AT CORNERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 922, 15 March 1930, Page 6

CARE AT CORNERS

magistrate defines offside RULE COURT CLAIM DECIDED “In his evidence, defendant showed, like too many others, he considered that the off-side rule relieved him from the necessity of taking care to avoid a collision with a vehicle on his left,” said Mr. W. It. McKean, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court, giving an interpretation of the off-side rule as applied to vehicles turning to the right into an intersecting road, across a stream of traffic on a main road. A claim was made by W. G. tVoife (Mr. Mahony) against R. G. Keeling (Mr. Nortberoft) for £23 18s Cd, and there was a counter claim by Keeling against Wolfe. The claims aros* out of a collision between a motor-truck driven by an employee of plaintiff and a motor-car driven by Keeling at the corner of Great South Road and Campbell Road. Keeling was turning to his right to turn into Campbell Road from the main road, while the truck was travelling along the Great South Road toward the city. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount claimed with costs, and on the counter claim judgment was also given for Wolfe with costs. In the opinion of rflr. Northcroft, there was a failure on the part of the driver of the truck to observe the offside rule when the car commenced to turn into Campbell Road to the right as he then had the car on his right, and was bound to give way to it. AN INTERSECTION

"Campbell Road, although it does not cross Great South Road, is nevertheless an intersection within the meaning of the regulations,” the magistrate said. “It is, however, an intersection which was on the truckdriver's left. The purpose of the regulation was to prevent collisions be tween vehicles where ‘if both continued on their course, there would be a possibility of a collision.’ The case of a vehicle changing its course is one that is not provided for in the regulation. The purpose of the regulation, therefore, was not to prevent the kind cf accident that happened in this case. I am of opinion that there was no breach by the truck-driver of the off-side rule. The off-side rule was conceived with the idea of speeding up main road traffic and induces carelessness in driving, especially in cases where the driver is on a wide road. In such cases the driver’s idea is that his own side of the road is clear because the off-side rule relieves him from the necessity for looking to see whether anything is approaching an intersection on that side and that so far as the other side of the road is concerned the width of the road makes it absurd to wait for anyone who is about to emerge. The off-side rule is therefore regarded as a licence to run risks. “Whether on the main roads or side-roads, drivers must take reasonable care in the management of their vehicles and cases like the present, where one driver wishes to do something that is calculated to interfere with the ordinary' stream of traffic fall into the class in which the driver’s duty is considered to be of a high order.”