CHARTS-IN-CAB PROSECUTION LOOMS Q Our operating centre is based at a
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
quarry and the office is broken into and frequently vandalised, so drivers have started to keep tachograph charts in their truck cabs.
The police stopped a driver and found that he had two-months' worth of charts in his cab and said that there would be a prosecution. Can you confirm the law on this point?
A Section 97A of the
Transport Act 1968 states that if an employed driver fails, without reasonable cause, to return a tachograph record sheet to his employer within 21 days of completing it he commits an offence.
Article 14 of EC Regulation 3821/85, which contains the tachograph law, states that "the undertaking" must keep the record sheets in good order for at least a year after their use. It does not say where they must be kept.
If your driver returned his tachograph record sheets to you within the 21 days stipulated and — because of the circumstances you describe — you then gave them back to him for safe keeping in his cab, it could be argued that you were ensuring they were kept in good order.
OVERRUN BRAKES CAUSE CONCERN QAs plant-hire operators we often tow small, two-wheeled compressors and pumps to customers. Some weigh less than 750kg and although overrun brakes are not legally necessary, they are fitted.
When bringing one back from a site a driver was stopped by the police who found that the brakes had seized up.
We are being prosecuted for not maintaining the brakes, but can that be right when they are not needed in the first place? (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 states: "Every part of every braking system and the means of operation thereof fitted to a vehicle shall be maintained .. ."
Notice that it does not refer to braking systems "required to be fitted" in the way that the duty to maintain a speedometer or a spray suppression device applies only to vehicles that require them.
If brakes are fitted — even if not legally required — they must be maintained in good and efficient order and kept properly adjusted.
This point arose last year in the case of DPP vs Young [1991] RTR 56 when the High Court ruled that magistrates were wrong to dismiss a brake-maintenance charge on the grounds that the brakes were not required by law.
CLAIMING LOSSES UNDER WARRANTY QI bought an expensive tractive unit last July and have had nothing but trouble with it. The gearbox has been rebuilt; cracked brake drums replaced; propshaft realigned and bearing replaced; new springs fitted; and various other items have been renewed or adjusted.
There is now a lack of power. The dealer says it is caused by the injectors being under par and, because they are not covered by the warranty, I will have to pay for them.
I have already lost a great deal of money by missing loads due to the tractor's defects. How do I stand under the truck's warranty for my losses?
AWarranties are an added inducement for a person to buy the goods being offered. They are usually presented in a way which leads the purchaser to believe that the goods will be repaired or replaced if they become defective — at no cost to the buyer. However, after making sweeping promises to remedy defects, the warranty goes on to contain conditions and exclusions designed to limit, as
far as possible, the liability of the maker for defects.
Financial losses caused by a vehicle being off the road is one liability a truck manufacturer is sure to try to exclude from his warranty.
Without examining your truck's warranty we cannot say precisely what is covered and what limitations are attached to that cover; you insist read it carefully yourself.
The warranty will not exclude your statutory right to a vehicle which is of merchantable quality and is fit . for the purpose for which it was bought. Perhaps the threat of court action and possible bad publicity might encourage the manufacturer to be more accommodating.
LICENCE CHANGES NEED CLARIFYING QI have been told that since 1 April a person who holds a Class three HGV licence can drive sixand eight-wheelers. Is that right?
Will a Class three HGV licence holder also be able to drive articulated vehicles?
I understand that my son will be able to start driving a car at the age of 17, but at what age can he drive a 7.5-tonne truck?
AOn 1 April changes were made to the vocational driving licence system and the holder of a Class three licence can now drive any size of rigid goods vehicle; and any 10-tonne restriction on a driver's Class three licence — created in the 1970s on redefinition of an HGV — no longer has effect. The holder of a Class three licence can no longer drive artics (over 7.5 tonnes GTW) without taking a further driving test.
Since the beginning of the month artics and drawbar outfits have become category C+E.
The entitlement of holders of existing HGV licences to drive vehicles in the new categories is contained in Regulation 16 and Schedule 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Heavy Goods and Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 1990.
Although they allow the holder of an existing Class two or three HGV licence to drive vehicles in category C+E, the entitlement is limited to drawbar combinations only.
The following table gives the corresponding entitlements:
ENTITLEMENT TO LGV CATEGORIES An HGV licence (other than a trainee's licence) of a class in column one will authorise the driving of vehicles of the categories in column two.
Old New system system 1 C and C-i-E.
1A As for 1 but limited to vehicles with automatic transmission.
2 C and C+E limited to drawbar outfits, 2A As for 2 but limited to vehicles with automatic transmission.
3 As in 2. 3A As in 2A.
Your son will have to be 18 before he can drive medium-size goods vehicles, for example over 3.5 tonnes but under 7.5 tonnes permissible maximum weight. • WOMEN'S WORK I saw a recent copy of your magazine with "Women in the industry" emblazoned all over the cover, and I fell on it; at last here was something I could relate to.
It is rare for me to read magazines these days as I don't want to learn 50 new and interesting ways with fish fingers or how to make the most of my split ends.
Having read the articles I swiftly reached the conclusion that womens' emancipation was at 'hand, and that the big news was that we may even be able to open doors on our own one day. There to prove it was a photograph of some plucky lass with an immaculate complexion and hands to match . .. not to mention the spotless equipment.
1 tried hard to relate to this latest role model, but I suppose that a photograph of myself with a split up the seat of my overall trousers, yoghurt all over my boots (yes, I work in food distribution); fifth-wheel grease all over my face where I'd wiped my nose on my gloves while grappling with suzies would not have had the same appeal.
Your article gave me the impression that women can just about cope on the road in a few specialised jobs, hut on the whole if they will insist on being part of the industry they are best confined to the office, where presumably there is no danger of them getting their hands dirty. It would have been refreshing to have seen the converse logic applied: that it is best to keep the men out on the road as they are not much use in the office.
If it had not been for the banality of the piece I would have been offended. I know women drivers who work in every field, from construction and heavy haulage to livestock and forestry. Some of them run their own firms, some run the family firm and most of them have, at the very least, a CPC, and on the whole they are more highly qualified than their male counterparts.
I expected to read about women, not mens' opinions of how capable or incapable women might be, or how embarrassed they get when they are stared at in truckstops.
Long ago, when I was a 'normal female' and before I became a lady trucker, I knew a man who had at one time run a gas welding shop. He used to tell me that the best gas welders he knew were women and that the only problem they had was that they were not strong enough to change the five-foot bottles on their own. I still haven't figured out why the industry couldn't use smaller bottles.
Yes, women are smaller and weaker physically. We have a smaller chest capacity, a smaller power unit, and we have less bone and muscle. To be a man's physical equal we must be twice as fit, kilo for kilo. Science has proved that men have larger brains. But science has yet to discover what they use them for.
In road haulage the receptive female part of the coupling is bourne by the tractive unit.
The passive trailer bears the male part and sits about with its hands in its pockets until motivated by a unit.
Your spotlight did nothing but air a few old prejudices .. . it doesn't matter what shape your chest is or what you keep in your underpants. What does matter is being interested in getting the job done.
Name and address supplied.
For the record, the lady on our front cover ( CM 28 February6 March) is a Class One reefer driver — Ed.