LICENSING BY NORMAN H. TILSLEY CASEBOOK
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Handbrakes—Yorkshire Haulier Highlights Anomalies
MINISTER MUST DEFINE FUNCTION AND FIX A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE
AS justice done at Huntingdon last week when, as exclusively reported
in last week's issue of The Commercial Motor, a Yorkshire haulage company, W. Jones and Sons (Bradford) Ltd. and one of its drivers were convicted and fined for using a vehicle with an inefficient handbrake, contrary to certain of the 1955 Construction and Use Regulations? As far as the law is concerned, the answer to this question must be "yes": but I Nay this with some hesitation. Both defendants were unrepresented by a solicitor, and the usual court procedure was not strictly adhered to; thus no mitigating subm!ssion on behalf of the defendants was made to the magistrates. Though the fines imposed were not excessive (110 and ES respectively for the firm and the driver), the driver's personal driving licence was endorsed.
Only last week, operator associations went to the Ministry to express concern about brakes; and as recently as last mon:h this journal co-operated with the R.H.A. in carrying out handbrake tests to lend support to the argument that many well-maintained, but not new, vehicles would be unable to meet any future Ministry requirements for a 25 per cent handbrake efficiency.
This and another article (The Commercial Motor, December 20 and 27 respectively) resulted in many letters being received, and the subject is obviously one on which readers feel keenly.
So it was not surprising that Mr. Jack Jones, the managing director of the defendant company, travelled to the court last week through thick fog to plead not guilty" to the charge and to fight what he deems to be an impossible interpretation of the law as applied by vehicle examiners of the Ministry of Transport.
A "Swoop" It appears that at 8 a.m. one day last September there was a " swoop " on vehicles travelling along Al at Brampton. This resulted in several hauliers and/or drivers being eventually summoned to appear before the magistrates charged with various Construction and Use offences.
One of the vehicles stopped and tested was a 1962 seven-tonner belonging to Jones. An Eastern area examiner. Mr. B. S. Stocker, said in evidence that whilst meter readings of the toothy:Ike on this vehicle were satis factor, with 45 per cent efficiency rzeord...d. there was no reading at all with the 11,mdbrake (though evidence was given that the handbrake eventually stopped the vehicle).
An immediate prohibition was placed on the vehicle. The firm sent out a mechanic hut, it was said, no adjustments whatsoever were made to the brakes. and
at 4 p.m. the vehicle examiner was asked to carry out another test. This time he found that the footbrake had a 55 per cent efficiency, whilst the handbrake, the subject of the subsequent charge, showed a 25 per cent efficiency reading. This figure, according to the examiner, was " quite satisfactory ". The prohibition notice was withdrawn and the vehicle allowed to proceed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Jones before the magistrates, the examiner agreed that after a 1.50-mile journey the brake drums could have heated up and this being so, there might well have been a loss of efficiency in the braking. He also agreed that he had carried out three tests with the foothrake before taking the reading. The vehicle was loaded with nearly 6 tons of bagged shoddy, and he had instructed the driver not to brake too hard in case he threw the load off. This, of course, meant that full effect was not given to the foothrake.
The examiner agreed, too, that this testing could well have further heated up the drums so that when the handbrake was tested there would have been a "far different reading from that obtainable with cool drums.
But despite this evidence the chairman of the bench— a Mrs. Leycester — announced that the company was guilty of the offence. However, she made this decision known before Mr. Jones had had an opportunity of submitting a final statement to the magistrates. He did, of course, give evidence.
Two Important Points Two important points emerged during the case on which official guidance is urgently needed. What is the precise function of a handbrake, and what is the minimum efficiency percentage required of a handbrake'?
There would anpear to be a basic difference of opinion between officials of the Ministry and the industry in general. on the function of a handbrake, During the hearing of the case at Huntingdon Mr. Jones maintained that the handbrake was merely a parking brake, whilst the examiner maintained, apparently, that the handbrake was for stopping a vehicle. Mr. Jones said that the vehicle manufacturers also considered that the. handbrake was merely a parking brake.
Whilst giving evidence on his own behalf he produced "The Commercial Motor Road Tests book and quoted the handbrake efficiency readings of several of the (new) vehicles tested. All of those quoted gave a handbrake efficiency of less than 25 per cent—the "quite satisfactory" figure mentioned by the vehicle examiner.
Alternative Method for Stopping As the law stands, the handbrake forms one of the alternative methods for stopping a vehicle " within a reasonable distance ". Nowhere in the regulations, as they apply to heavy commercial vehicles, is any percentage laid down for handbrake efficiency.
If what Mr. Jones maintains is true— that the manufacturers regard the handbrake as merely a device to hold the vehicle once it is parked—then manufacturers arc not strictly complying with the law. And if a brand new vehicle was found to be on a public road with a handbrakc affixed to the vehicle solely to hold it once it was parked, then a manufacturer could surely find himself facing a charge for not complying with the regulations as regards the construction of the vehicle.
When the testing of heavy commercial vehicles becomes law, then, of course, some minimum standard will have to be laid down by the Minister. It is to he hoped that When this is done, the exact function of the handbrake will be specified.
As for Mr. Jones and his driver: I feel, with great respect to him, that had he instructed a solicitor, although both the company and the driver might still have been convicted, there might well have been no fines and, What is more important, no endorsement of the driver's personal driving licence.
Mr. Jones could, of course, have followed the line taken by the other hauliers who were prosecuted on that day.
and pleaded "guilty But, as he said to me afterwards: "It is a matter of principle. Why should I plead guilty when I am certain that I am not'?"