1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256 
OBSCURED MIRRORS -NOT A BREACH
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
k LORRY carrying a load which 3, obscured the rearwards view through
wing mirrors was not in breach of egulation 17 of the Motor Vehicles :Ionstruction and Use) Regulations, 1963. his was decided by the Queen's Bench ivisional Court last week.
The Court upheld a decision of agistrates for the County of Lancaster . Chorley on April 22, dismissing immonses against Walter Cox (Transart) Ltd. and their driver, Walter E. Ben, involving the use of mirrors on a Try,
Lord Parker (the Lord Chief Justice) .id the Regulation provided that goods :hides should be equipped with at least I/0 mirrors, one of which should be fitted (ternally on the offside of the vehicle id the other internally or on the nearde wing. so as to assist the driver, if !. so desires. to become aware of traffic a the road on both sides rearwards ". The lorry in this case was fitted with re regulation mirrors, but on this occaCM it carried a large glass-fibre swimming Nal which projected 3 ft. on each side, :ndering the mirrors useless.
The magistrates, in dismissing the immonses, found that the lorry did )mply with the Regulation " when in armal use for the purpose for which it as constructed and designed
Clearly, the vehicle loaded as it was ld no mirrors which were of any assist ice to the driver, said Lord Parker, qUally. without the load it complied ith Regulation 17. But the Court had
consider the vehicle in its unloaded ate.
The lorry as it was loaded might have en the subject of another offence, but at an offence against Regulation 17.
In his Lordship's judgment the magisates came to a correct decision. Mr. Isticc Ashworth and Mr. Justice ridgery agreed, Mr. J. Edward Jones, for the clerk to ancashire County Council, asked for ave to appeal to the House of Lords. efusing, the application, Lord Parker )mmented that new regulations were ade by Parliament every year,