AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

know the law

14th April 1972, Page 94
14th April 1972
Page 94
Page 94, 14th April 1972 — know the law
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?

by Les Oldridge, AMIRTE, MIMI

The Construction and Use Regulations (14)

REGULATION 76 (2) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulalations (1969) says the load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer must be so secured or be in such a position that danger is not likely to be caused to any person by reason of the load or any part of the load falling from the vehicle or by the load moving on the vehicle.

The variety of loads which have fallen from lorries at one time or another is extraordinary. Bags of coke, boxes of apples, a 5-ton electric motor, hay, straw, cartons and boxes of various shapes and sizes are among the items which have fallen off lorries and for which prosecutions have been taken. Here is an area where the experienced driver who stacks, sheets and ropes a load neatly and securely is of such value to his employer. Incidentally, the driver of a vehicle may be responsible for the offence of dangerous loading, although the loading was done by another. The person actually responsible for the loading may be charged with -using" the vehicle in contravention of this regulation. Gifford v Whittaker (1942) I KB 501.

Regulation 76 (3) states that no motor vehicle or trailer must be used for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause or be likely to cause danger to any person in or on the vehicle or trailer or on a road. This section is rarely used but recently an unsuccessful prosecution was brought where some drums of cyanide fell off a flat. One would think that if the prosecution had been brought under the previous regulation -unsecured load" it would have been successful.

Bad stacking

Where danger occurs because a vehicle's load is badly stacked, no offence is committed against Regulation 76 (3) since it relates to the use of the vehicle for a purpose for which its construction and design makes it unsuitable, or for which it is unfitted by a failure to maintain it. Hollis Brothers v Buttwell v Bailey (1968) I WLR 663.

Regulation 77 deals with the maintenance of speedometers but I dealt with this subject in a previous article. The next paragraph states that all glass or other transparent material fitted to motor vehicles must be maintained in such condition that it does not obscure vision of the driver while the vehicle is being driven on a road. Since the improvement in manufacturing techniques for toughened or laminated glass, offences against this section are not so numerous. Regulation 79 deals with the maintenam of brakes. Abbreviated, the regulatic requires that every part of every brakir system and of the means of operation ther of fitted to motor vehicles and trailers mu at all times be maintained in good ar efficient working order and proper adjusted and in such condition that tl efficiency laid down for the particular tyl of vehicle concerned can be reached.

Brake tests

In Watson v Muir 1938 J C 181 it wt held that it was desirable that the owners the vehicle and all others who may I criminally affected by a brake test shou. have an opportunity of being present whc the test is carried out. But evidence of test where the owner is not present nevertheless admissable.

Regulation 80 states that steering gei and windscreen wipers must be maintaint in good and efficient working order an properly adjusted.

At this stage it may be opportune to loc at the words -using", "causing" or "pe mitting" an offence for they occur in cot nection with most offences under the C an U Regulations. Obviously, if a person driving a vehicle he is "using" it but tt meaning goes much deeper than this 134 cause it has been held on many occasior that an employer is using the vehicle, whi his employee is driving it, although he ma be many miles away. This applies only to tt employeremployee relationship. If som4 one else, not an employee, is using yot vehicle then you may be "permitting" use but it has been held that one can only t guilty of permitting a defective vehicle t be used if one is aware of the defect. Th knowledge may be implied if the owner c the vehicle has "shut his eyes to tt obvious".

For example, if a vehicle with a very bal tyre is on loan to someone for a shot period and the offence is detected it likely that the court would consider tilt the owner would have neen aware of it condition had he exercised ordinary can and in these circumstance a charge c permitting would be likely to succeed.

"Causing" requires something in th nature of a direct order. For example, "1 you don't drive that vehicle with defectiv brakes you will be dismissed." This charg of "causing" is seldom used and as th charge of "using" or "permitting" carrie the same penalty the prosecution usual] prefers one of these,

Tags

Organisations: UN Court

comments powered by Disqus