Cambridge Independent Press 7 May 1909: P.C. Pallant and speed trap

THE TRUMPINGTON MOTOR “TRAP”

More Motorists Convicted

LOUGHTON DRIVER’S FRUITLESS DEFENCE.

At the Cambridge Division Police Court on Saturday, there were further summonses against motorists for driving to the danger of the public, at Trumpington, where a police “trap” resulted in two convictions the previous week.

The magistrates present were Lieut.-Col. Hurrell (in the chair), Colonel R. T. Caldwell, I. Tebbitt, H. Wiles, W. Clear, A. S. Campkin, W. Durnford, and E. Parish, Esqs.

Frederick Gardiner, chauffeur, of 94, Gloucester Mews, West London, was summoned for driving a motor car at a speed dangerous to the public, at Trumpington, on April 18th.

Defendant did not appear.

P. s. Pallant gave evidence as to timing cars over a measured distance of 440 yards, at Trumpington, on the day in question. The measured piece of road varied in width from 24 feet to 32 feet. Defendant’s car covered the distance in 42 seconds, or at the rate of 21 miles 754 yards an hour. When he spoke to defendant his employer, who was in the car, said “I told my man to drive slowly.” When told at what speed he had been travelling, he said “Well, that is only just over the limit.” Witness told him they were not subject to a limit at the spot in question.

P. c. Hiner also gave evidence.

Defendant, who, it was stated, had been fined at Marlborough-street Police Court last year for committing a similar offence, was fined £5 and costs.

At a later stage of the proceedings defendant came into Court and made an appeal to the Bench to have the case taken over again, stating that he was unable to reach Cambridge in time to be present at the hearing.

He was told this was impossible.

TWENTY-SEVEN MILES AN HOUR.

Owen Leigh Summers, hosier, of “Southern-hay,” Upper Park, Loughton, Essex, was summoned for committing a similar offence at Trumpington on the same day. In this case defendant was riding a motor cycle.

Mr. W. H. Bishop, of Stoke Newington, appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

P. c. Martin said that at 3.45 defendant, who came from the direction of Cambridge, passed over the measured distance on a motor cycle. He covered the distance in 33 seconds, this being at the rate of 27 miles 108 yards per hour. When he stopped defendant he asked to see witness’s stop-watch. Witness showed him the watch, starting and stopping it at his request. He said, “yes, that’s all right. Now let’s see your measured distance.” He walked to the near side gutter at the commencement of the measured distance, and said “Now if I come along here I have to get a few yards into the measured distance before you can see me.” Witness tested this with defendant, and found that if defendant rode within a distance of five feet from the gutter, he would have to come some nine yards into the measured distance before witness could see him distinctly, as there was a slight curve in the road. Witness pointed out to him, however, that he was given 60 yards at the other end of the measured distance when the time was taken. The measured distance was in a populated neighbourhood, being in the main street at Trumpington. While witness was talking to defendant two men passed on bicycles and one shouted to defendant “What, have they caught you?” Defendant shouted “Yes!” The cyclists then said “Serve you right; you were going at 30 miles an hour.”

Cross-examined, witness said there were a good many people on the measured distance at the time. He did not agree that if there had been a cyclist or pedestrian at the commencement of the measured distance he would have prevented witness from seeing when defendant’s cycle commenced to traverse it. There was no kerb at the spot between the footpath and the road, but he did not think that even if defendant had gone quite into the gutter he could have travelled more than nine yards on the measured distance before witness would have been able to see him.

P.s. Pallant said there were 8 foot passengers and 4 bicycles on the measured distance at the time defendant was crossing it. Defendant was wearing a light coat, so that witness and his brother officer had no difficulty in seeing him as soon as he entered the measure distance.

Cross-examined, witness stated that there were six men and two children on the measured distance at the time, and he was not prepared to swear that there were not two men at the commencement of the distance. In witness’s opinion if defendant hugged the gutter he might possibly come some 23 yards into the measured distance before being seen, but there was a telegraph pole standing practically in the gutter.

Supt. Webb: if he had been travelling in the gutter for 23 yards he would have had 20 yards at the other end, would he not? – Thirty-seven yards, sir.

Mr Henry Spencer, grocer, Harston, stated that he was standing with the police officers when defendant was stopped. He estimated defendant’s speed at from 30 to 35 miles an hour.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Bishop, addressing the Bench, said defendant was summoned for driving at a speed dangerous to the public, which was a serious matter for him, as a conviction would involve the endorsement of his licence. When he passed through Trumpington in returning from Cambridge on the day in question, the road was as clear as it could well be, and there was no danger to anyone. There was a considerable curve in the road at the spot and it was impossible for a constable who stood at the end of the measure distance to time a motor-cyclist as he entered upon it. One officer had admitted that if defendant travelled at the side of the road they would be unable to see him for over 20 yards. Defendant would get into the box and deny that he was travelling at the speed alleged. It was not a question of costs with defendant, but a question of principle, and he had gone to a considerable trouble and expense to make investigations, as he felt sure that a mistake had been made. An official timekeeper of the Royal Automobile Club had visited the spot and had made tests that very morning, and would be called as a witness. He (Mr. Bishop) suggested that it would be difficult for one constable to time a motorist over the whole of a measured distance with such a curve in it, and in his opinion 20 miles an hour could be called a safe speed in riding through a place like Trumpington. When stopped on the day in question defendant pulled up within seven yards, and it was never suggested that he had endangered anyone.

Defendant, in the witness box, stated that he had held a license for 6 years and was an expert driver. In his estimation he was travelling at 18 miles an hour on the day in question, and he thought he could estimate his speed pretty correctly, for he had taken part in many reliability trials and speed judgment tests. In his opinion, a motor cyclist could travel on the near side of the road at the spot in question for 100 yards before a person standing at the commencement of the measured distance could see him, though it would, of course, be difficult in the case of a large car.

Supt. Webb: Do you seriously suggest that? – Yes. The sergeant has admitted that I could travel 23 yards.

Supt. Webb: But it would be rather dangerous to go so close to the path even at 18 miles an hour, would it not? – I don’t think so.

Mr. Arthur Geo. Reynolds, Woodford Green, Essex, stated that he was an official timekeeper to the Royal Automobile Club, and held a first-class certificate for timing. He had had a great deal of experience, having been engaged in many races and trials, including the races in the Isle of Man. He had visited the measured distance at Trumpington that morning, and saw it was impossible for anyone standing at the end of the measured distance to see a motor-cyclist entering it at the commencement, though a car might be seen. If the cyclist hugged the near side of the road he might go 105 yards before being seen, possibly a little more, and a pedestrian or cyclist at the commencement of the measured distance would certainly obstruct a constable’s view from the other end. It was, in fact, impossible for anyone standing at one end of the distance to time anything like accurately.

Cross-examined by Supt. Webb, the witness said he was not able to state whether a cyclist at four feet from the gutter would be visible, for he did not make that test. He did not know that it would be so very risky to travel so close to the gutter at 18 miles an hour.

Mr. Bishop asked the Bench to adjourn the case in order to allow these tests to be made. This application was refused, and defendant was convicted and fined £2. with £1 1s. costs.