Two Attendants for Mobile Cranes
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MOTTINGHAM magistrates, on
Monday, found J. S. Burnett Ltd„ of Talon, Notts, guilty of causing a heavy locomotive to be driven on the highway without two persons in attendance (The Commercial Motor, May 1). The company was fined £10 and ordered to pay £3 3s. prosecution costs.
For the defendants, Mr. P. F. Scott asked for deferment of 28 days in respect of the costs, so that his clients could consider the question of an appeal. His application was granted.
The company pleaded not guilty to the charge when first appearing in court on April 27.
On Monday, Mr. J. G. McMeeking, chairman of the Bench, said the prosecution was brought under Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which made it an offence for heavy locomotives to be used on the road without the driver being accompanied by another man.
Both sides had agreed that a mobile crane—the vehicle concerned in this case—was a heavy locomotive and came within the ambit of this Section.
Mr. Mclvfeeking pointed out that the requirements of the Section were considerably modified by Regulation 110 of the Motor Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations, which came into force in November, 1963. But mobile cranes were not included amongst the descriptions of vehicles exempted by Regulation 110 from compliance with Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act.
Mr. MeMeeking went on: "On November 1, 1963, a Motor Vehicles (Authorization of Special Types) General Order came into force. The effect of this Order is to authorize the use on the road of certain vehicles, provided the restrictions and conditions laid down in the Order arc complied with.
"In other words, the Special Authorization Order provides a defence for those who use vehicles of the types described in the Order, which are otherwise in breach of the Construction and Use Regulations.
The use of a mobile crane of the type we are concerned with is not affected by the Authorization Order. In our view one must go back to Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
"The defendant company was on the occasion in question clearly in breach of the regulations in this Section ".
The magistrates deferred judgment in two similar cases.