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 
GIVE-WAY DILEMMA
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• I was driving all-tonne truck at about 30mph on a main road which had a speed limit of 40mph. I was only a short distance from a junction on my left when a car which had been waiting there suddenly pulled out into my path. I had to brake heavily to avoid running into it.
I noticed the end of the road the car came from was marked with double broken lines which I have always believed to be giveway lines. I caught up with the car when all traffic had to stop at some road works. I got out and spoke to the car driver who became abusive and said I should have slowed down to let him out.
I often have the same problem at roundabouts when other drivers can't wait and pull outjust in front of my bumper. The broken lines at roundabouts are single ones.
Can you tell me what the law is on give-way lines?
• Dealing firstly with the giveway signs and lines at a road junction, Regulation 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions 1994 states that the vertical give-way signs and broken double white line road markings are traffic signs to which Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 applies and it is therefore an offence for a driver to fail to comply with them.
Regulation 25 of the 1994 Regulations states that the requirement conveyed by the transverse give-way road markings, whether or not used with a give-way vertical sign or a give-way triangle marked on the roadway, is that no vehicle shall proceed past the line which is nearer to the major road and into the major road "in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of the vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident".
Therefore, the car driver you spoke to was committing an offence.
At a roundabout, where a blue sign with white arrows indicating a clockwise circular movement is displayed, the 1994 Regulations state that vehicles entering the junction must "give priority" to vehicles from the right at the transverse road marking (or, if the road marking is not visible, at the road junction).
The road marking to be used with this sign is a single, broad white line with short breaks. The blue sign is one to which Section 36 applies and failure to comply with the "give-priority" requirement is an offence.
At some roundabouts a single broken white line with 1m breaks between 1m sections of line is used. The 1994 regulations state that vehicles approaching the roundabout should give way at or immediately beyond the line to vehicular traffic circulating on the carriageway of the roundabout.
This road marking is not one to which Section 36 applies but a failure to give way, like any of the above failures, could lead tea charge of dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention.
EMPLOYER'S DEFENCE II We advertised for a fulltime tipper driver. The local Job Centre sent a man who seemed satisfactory so we gave him the job. Little did we know that at the same time he was taking on other driving work with a driving agency. Soon, excuses were made as to why he did not turn up for work and he eventually left the job. It was only after he left that we found out about the other driving work and we are concerned that he has been exceeding driving limits and not taking sufficient rest while in our employ.
Could we be prosecuted for hours offences ?
• If you found yourselves being prosecuted under the EC or British hours law for offences which arose due to the driver also driving for another employer you should be able to avoid a conviction.
Section 96(11) of the Transport Act 1968 provides that if any of the requirements of the domestic drivers' hours code is contravened by (a) a driver and (b) any other person (being the driver's employer or manager) who caused or permitted the contravention, he would commit an offence.
But the sub-section goes on to say that a person charged under (b) will not be convicted if he can prove to the court that the contravention was due to the fact that the driver had been working elsewhere and the defendant could not reasonably have known this. Section 96(11A) of the same Act is similar to Section 96(11) and makes it an offence to contravene the EC hours' law in Great Britain. And Section 96(11B) goes on to say that a person will not be convicted of the offence if he proves to the court the matters set out in the above paragraph.
A court would be likely to ask what steps, if any, you have taken to prevent or become aware of moonlighting by drivers. If you do not already do so, it would be advisable when you employ a driver to get him to sign a document stating that he understands the hours and tachograph law and his other responsibilities in relation to the vehicle (which you should fully describe); that he has no other employment; and that he will not, during his employment with you, do any other work without your written agreement, Note that an employer can only be prosecuted for causing or permitting an hours offence. Where such words are used the prosecution usually has to show that the employer knew of the facts constituting the offence or turned a blind eye to them. But in the House of Lords case of Vehicle Inspectorate vs Nuttall (19991RTR 264, it was said that permitting in this context means failing to take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions by drivers.
So, again, the onus is on you to show that you are doing something to prevent the situation arising. A person who took no steps to be aware of, or prevent, moonlighting by drivers which resulted In offences would not succeed in claiming he acted reasonably.