Ambrose J:

This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an acquittal by a Magistrate. The acquittal followed a finding that no case against the accused had been Made out by the prosecution which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction.

The accused was charged with inconsiderate driving, an offence against s. 25(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 227). It was alleged that at 8.30 p.m. on 3 June 1959, at the junction of Crescent Road and Mountbatten Road he drove motor taxi SH 3540 in an inconsiderate manner by failing to give right of way to traffic proceeding on a main road and thereby colliding with motor cars SC 2692 and SC 4389.

Mountbatten Road and Crescent Road intersect each other at right angles, the former running east and west, the latter running north and south.

The evidence of Mrs. Una Wilson was to this effect. At 8.30 p.m. on the day in question She was driving motor car SC 4389 along Crescent Road from the north towards the intersection. She saw a taxi coming very fast from the opposite direction. She slowed down. The taxi did not stop or slow down at the intersection. It collided with a motor car, which was travelling along Mountbatten Road and across the intersection towards the east at a speed of about 25 miles per hour.

Sip Lim Yam, the driver of motor car SC 2692, which was knocked into by the taxi, testified that he saw the taxi coming out of Crescent Road. It swerved to the right in front of his motor car and then swerved back. He applied his brakes but could not avoid colliding with the taxi. The front off-side corner of his motor car struck the near-side door of the taxi. The taxi overturned and collided with motor car SC 4389.

The first reason given by the Magistrate for his finding was that there was a conflict of evidence between Mrs. Wilson and Sip: Mrs. Wilson said that the taxi collided with Sip's motor car, and Sip said that his motor car collided with the taxi. It seemed to me that there was no real conflict of evidence. Furthermore, the question which the Magistrate had to decide was whether the accused had driven his taxi without reasonable consideration for other persons using a major road.

The second reason for the Magistrate's finding was that there was no sign in Crescent Road south of the cross roads to indicate to vehicles moving north that they were approaching a main road; and that he was, therefore, not prepared to take judicial notice that Mountbatten Road is a main road. According to the evidence of Sergeant Abu Bakar, Mountbatten Road is 36 feet wide and Crescent Road 18 feet 4 inches wide, and there is a "HALT AT MAJOR ROAD AHEAD" sign north of the cross roads. To my mind there was sufficient evidence to establish that Mountbatten Road is a major road. In any event, the fact that Mountbatten Road is a major road is, in my opinion, too notorious to require proof.

The third reason for the Magistrate's finding was that Sip himself had contravened r. 12(1) of the Road Traffic Rules, 1950. This rule provides as follows:

The driver . . . . of any vehicle arriving at an uncontrolled intersection or junction of roads...... shall give way to any vehicle approaching his front from his right or off side.

It was not disputed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor that the intersection was uncontrolled. In my opinion, whether Sip had contravened r. 12(1) or not, the question before the Magistrate was: did the accused drive his taxi without reasonable consideration for other persons using Mountbatten Road? The accused's right of way under r. 12(1) was not an absolute right to proceed. It had to be exercised subject to his statutory duty to drive with reasonable consideration for other road users. As regards consideration for others, the Highway Code (1950 Supplement to the Laws of the Colony of Singapore, vol II, p. 355) affords valuable guidance, consideration for others being its keynote.

Although failure to observe any provision of the Highway Code does not of itse