What
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
is "Dangerous Speed" 7 I N a King's Bench Divisional Court, last week, Lord Hewart and Justices Humphreys and du Parcq decided that magistrates pitting at Middlewich (Cheshire) bad " misunderstood the salutary provisions of Section 11 (I) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930," and allowed an appeal by Superintendent G. Kingman, of the Cheshire Police, against the magistrates' refusal to convict William Seager, a lorry driver, of a charge of driving at a dangerous speed.
The magistrates found that no other motor traffic or member of the public was actually placed in danger. They decided that, although the vehicle was being driven at a speed much over the statutory limit, it was not dangerous to the public, in view of the good condition of the lorry and the type of roa cl .Lord Hewart said that the question was whether the speed was dangerous when all the circumstances were taken into consideration, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which not only was actually, at the time, but which might reasonably have been expected to be, on the road. It was impossible to reconcile the decision of the justices with the facts, winch were that the road Ana a main road, with a bend, a side-turning and a converging road.
In the circumstances, it was not open to them to find that there was no danger to the public and traffic which might reasonably have been expected to be on the road when a lorry weighing 16 tons was driven at nearly 40 m.p.h. The justices seemed to have confounded potential danger and actual danger. The apueal must be allowed.
Mr. Justice Humphreys said that the magistrates had misunderstood the salutary provisions a the section. The danger referred to could be found in the speed of the vehicle itself.