AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Careless but not reckless

11th August 1988, Page 14
11th August 1988
Page 14
Page 14, 11th August 1988 — Careless but not reckless
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• A lorry driver whose truck ran away down a hill has successfully appealed against a conviction for reckless driving, only to be charged with careless driving at Burnley Crown Court.

In June, James Gaffney was fined .E300 by Accrington Magistrates, when they convicted him of reckless driving and imposed 10 penalty points on his licence. He was also fined 2,50 for using an HGV driving licence issued in Ireland, and £.50 for using a vehicle with defective brakes.

He was also ordered to pay £225 prosecution costs. (CM 23-29 June.) The Court was told that Gaffney's loaded vehicle had been making its way down a hill towards Burnley when he had applied his brakes and nothing had happened. He had steered the vehicle into a wall to avoid striking cars at traffic lights ahead. Vehicle examiner Henry Kococinsld said that he had found the vehicle to be in a very poor condition. A ruptured diaphragm had reduced the truck's air pressure, affecting the brakes on all four wheels on the front axles.

The cam on the brakes of three of the four rear axle wheels had gone over the centre. In addition, there were defects to the steering, headlamps and tyres.

Police Constable Robert Adamson, of the Lancashire Police, said that an analysis of Gaffney's tachograph chart showed that he had not had to brake suddenly on any of his previous journeys.

The defence argued that the exhaust brake of the vehicle concerned would have worked efficiently in slowing the vehicle down, and it was possible that Gaffney had been unaware that there had been anything wrong. The cam of the rear brakes could also have gone over the centre as a result of the accident.

Judge Steele said he felt that there was insufficient evidence to ,show that Gaffiiey must have known of the condition of the brakes. He felt that a prudent driver, however, ought to have discovered the defects and he therefore directed that Gaffney be charged with careless driving.

Gaffney pleaded guilty to thi: offence, and was fined £1110 with four penalty points, and ordered to pay £100 towards prosecution costs.