Road Traffic - 1900- 1929

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Cannan -v- Earl of Abingdon [1900] 2 QB 66
1900 Bigham, Phillimore JJ	Road Traffic	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court was asked whether it was correct to charge a bicycle as a 'carriage' at a toll station for the bridge over the River Thames at Swinford. Held: On the language of the particular statute a bicycle or tricycle was a "carriage". Bigham J said: "The framers of the Act no doubt did not contemplate anything in the nature of a bicycle or a tricycle, but the language of the Act does, I think, cover things such as bicycles and tricycles, which have come into existence since the Act was passed. The bicycle or tricycle is a thing which carries. It may carry a man, as a horse does, or a carriage does; it may carry luggage or goods as we know that tradesmen's tricycles do. It is, therefore, in my opinion, a carriage, and, being a carriage, it is made by the terms of the Act of Parliament liable to pay the toll." Phillimore J agreed saying: "I think that a bicycle or a tricycle is a vehicle or is a carriage. Any mechanical contrivance, which carries people or weights over the ground, carrying the weights or taking the people off their own feet, so that the foot of man and the body and trunk of man do not support his own weight or the weight of the burden carried, is, I think, a carriage, and I do not think it matters that the man who is carried gives his own propulsion to the carriage. If he got the propulsion by the application of levers worked with his hands, as one sees men doing in the streets, the case would be tolerably clear, and I think it makes no difference that he gets his propulsion by pedalling with his feet – an operation which is perfectly different from the operations of walking, running, or skating, in all of which he bears his own weight at the same time that he moves himself. I therefore come to the conclusion that a bicycle or tricycle is a "carriage"."

Hawkins -v- Edwards [1901] 2 KB 169
1901	Licensing, Road Traffic	Casemap 1 Citers
	Town Police Clauses Act 1847 38

Simpson -v- Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Company [1903] 1 KB 405; [1903] 72 LJKB 204; [1903] 88 LT 117; [1903] 67 JP 65; [1903] 51 WR 545; [1903] 19 TLR 225; [1903] 47 Sol Jo 278; [1903] 1 LGR 235
1903 CA The Earl of Halsbury LC, Lord Alverstone CJ and Sir Francis Jeune P	Road Traffic	Casemap 1 Citers
	The owners of the tolled bridge over the Teign, sought to charge bicycle riders tolls. Held: A bicycle was not chargeable as a carriage on the bridge toll under the Act establishing it. The court doubted that a bicycle was a 'carriage hung on springs'.

Smith -v- Kynnersley [1903] 1 KB 788
1903	Road Traffic	1 Citers
	The court held that a bicycle seeking to use a toll road was, by virtue of the words of the statute allowing the charge, not chargeable as a carriage.

Bastable -v- Little [1907] 1 KB 59
1907 Lord Alverstone CJ	Crime, Road Traffic	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant had been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under section 2 of the 1885 Act. Held: Lord Alverstone CJ said: 'Suppose a party of men are engaged in the offence of night poaching, and a person passing near warns them that the police are coming, I think it is clear that that could not be held to be an offence within this section. We must not allow ourselves to be warped by any prejudice against motor cars, and so to strain the law against them.' The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the time when they received Mr Little's signals, although all slowed down. Darling J made this point and added: 'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.'
	Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885 2

Betts -v- Stevens [1910] 1 KB 1; 26 TLR 5
1910 Alverstone CJ, Darling and Bucknill JJ	Crime, Road Traffic	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant, an Automobile Association patrolman was accused of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The police had set a speed trap, and the defendant had warned approaching vehicles of the trap. At the time they were warned they were thought to have been already speeding, and the police observed this. Held: Bastable was distinguished on the ground that the action of the patrolman obstructed the police obtaining their timings. The gist of the offence lay in the intention with which the acts complained of were done. If the intention was simply to prevent the commission of crime, no offence was committed. It was otherwise if the intention was to prevent the commission of crime only at a time when there was a danger of detection. Lord Alverstone said: "In my opinion a man who, finding that a car is breaking the law, warns the driver, so that the speed of the car is slackened, and the police are thereby prevented from ascertaining the speed and so are prevented from obtaining the only evidence upon which, according to our experience, Courts will act with confidence, is obstructing the police in the execution of their duty." Darling J said: "The appellant in effect advised the drivers of those cars which were proceeding at an unlawful speed not to go on committing an unlawful act. If that advice were given simply with a view to prevent the continuance of the unlawful act and procure observance of the law, I should say that there would not be an obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty of collecting evidence beyond the point at which the appellant intervened. The gist of the offence to my mind lies in the intention with which the thing is done. In my judgment in Bastable v Little I used these words: 'In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime may be suspended while there is danger of detection.' I desire to repeat those words."

Sales -v- Lake [1922] 1KB 553
1922	Road Traffic, Licensing	Casemap 1 Citers
	A hackney carriage may be plying for hire siomply by waiting in the street available to take passengers.