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 
Another Warning on Rest Periods
Page 138
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE importance of strict adherence to the regulations about lorry-drivers' rest periods was emphasized by Mr. M. P. Pugh when he prosecuted a haulage company and two of their drivers at Stourbridge last week. The Hadcroft Transport Co., Ltd., admitted seven cases of allowing men to drive more than 11 hours in 24 and were fined £7 on each one. A similar fine was imposed for not ensuring that one of the drivers kept current records.
Mr. Pugh, for the Ministry of Transport, said the regulations were aimed at protecting the public from the risks that arose when drivers were suffering from exhaustion. In this case there had been extreme laxity by the company where supervision was concerned.
Mr. N. Carless, defending, " said Hadcroft Transport had a good record, apart from a few minor offences. The company had been slack through relying too much on their employees, although there could be no suggestion that the two drivers had " cooked " the record sheets. Drivers had now been threatened with dismissal should• any further cases arise. The drivers were each fined a total of £20. Hadcroft Transport were ordered to pay witnesses' fees of £1 and an advocate's fee of £10 10s,