DUTY OF CYCLISTS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 2 December 1938, Page 5

DUTY OF CYCLISTS

MAGISTRATE’S OBSERVATIONS

KEEPING REAR MUDGUARDS WHITE.

CASE AGAINST MOTORIST. DISMISSED.

Some observations of general interest on the duty of cyclists in respect to having their bicycles in conformity with the regulations were made by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., in the Masterton Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, in the course of a case in which Owen William Hosking was charged with, on October 22, driving in Queen Street without due care and attention. Mr C. C. Marsack, who appeared for defendant, entered a plea of not guilty. Senior-Sergeant G. A. Doggett said the proceedings arose from an accident involving a motor vehicle travelling from Te Ore Ore along Queen Street between the two bridges at 11.25 p.m. on October 22 and a cyclist travelling in the same direction, who was overtaken by the motor vehicle. There was no other traffic about at the time. William Winhall, the cyclist who was concerned in the accident, said he was riding on the edge of the bitumen on the left hand side of the road. He noticed some lights coming from behind him and he had just started to pull over further to the left when his bicycle was struck. It had been raining previous to the accident.

Constable Robert Berry gave evidence in respect to a statement made by defendant when he reported the accident to the police.' In this statement defendant stated that he had the lights of the car dimmed and that 'he did not see the cyclist until he was within a few feet of him. It was raining at the time and defendant said he was travelling at under 30 miles per hour. He admitted having had four or five glasses of beer before leaving the farm, between 7 and 11.15 p.m. Defendant said he did not see any taillight on the cycle prior to the accident. Constable Berry said that when he questioned defendant at the police station he looked on the floor. Defendant’s breath smelt of alcohol and he appeared to be quite cheeky about the matter. V ! Mr Marsack submitted that for the police to succeed it was necessary for them to show that defendant did not exercise the prudence and skill that could be expected from an ordinarily competent driver. The onus was on the police to prove that the driver had failed to exercise these qualities. He contended that the driver of a. motor vehicle would have considerably difficulty in seeing anything on the road by reason of the lights, which were placed on the side of the road, casting shadows on it. The town lights in the distance were also likely to cause confusion, especially with so many of them reflected in the wet bitumen. The bicycle could be regarded as an unlighted vehicle under the circumstances, as the rear reflector was badly placed and it would be a very great courtesy to the owner of the bicycle to call the rear mudguard white, Mr Lawry: “The only negligence that could be suggested is that defendant did not keep his eyes open. There is no sugegstion of speeding, there is no suggestion that he was • driving an erratic course or was intoxicated and no suggestion of want of care, except that he ran into the cyclist.” Mr Marsack: “My submission is that the mere fact that he collided with a cyclist is not sufficient to discharge the onus that rests on the police to show that he failed to keep a proper lookout.” Once defendant saw the cyclist, said Mr Marsack, he did everything that a motorist could do. ’ Mr Lawry said it was a borderline case. He emphasised the necessity for persons riding bicycles on a black surface to take every precaution to see that their machines complied with tne regulations. It had to be remembered that these things were done for the cyclist’s own protection and it was to their own benefit that they should be carried out in the manner that the regulations required. There were too many mudguards, such as the one in this case, in which the cyclist had had the rear mudguard painted white at some time but had failed to keep i a clear white. He considered it would be a good idea if it were required that the mudguards should be periodically painted white. In the instance before the court it left a lot to the imagination to believe that the mudguard was in a white condition. Cyclists should realise that a black bicycle on a black stretch of road was very hard to when the road was wet and they should take every opportunity to see that everything was done to make themselves more visible. Cyclists had no monopoly of the use of the h ghway. The cyclist in this case certainly had a rear reflector fitted to his bicycle, though the position of the reHector seemed to be rather doubtful. He considered that a white mudguar enabled a motorist to pick up a cyclist much more readily than a reflector and that it was imperative that the mudguard should be kept a clear white. As some doubts were raised in the piesent case he had to give the benefit of those doubts to the defendant and d.smiss the case.