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 
Coot ta get
16th March 1979, Page 43
16th March 1979
Page 43
Page 43, 16th March 1979
— Coot ta get
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In your issue of February 2nd, on page 19, you report a case under the heading "Driver had no cover, took wife shopping," which I consider could be misleading.
The Road Traffic Act requires that all mechanically propelled vehicles capable of carrying passengers must have insurance cover in respect of legal liability for such passengers.
That then is the law and cannot be altered by statements to the contrary.
I recognise that there is another aspect of the matter in that the person in question deviated from his route but that is another matter entirely.
Apart from any interest which your readers in general might have in this point, I feel that the Tribunal concerned should have the matter drawn to its attention.
T. L. JOSE, Beckenham, Kent.