AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

' Drivers Do Not Realize Jeopardy To Their Employers ORRY drivers

1st October 1965, Page 40
1st October 1965
Page 40
Page 40, 1st October 1965 — ' Drivers Do Not Realize Jeopardy To Their Employers ORRY drivers
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?

did not realize the 1-4 jeopardy they put hauliers in by not reporting faults on their vehicles, commented Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, the Northern Licensing Authority, in Darlington on Tuesday, Good drivers got to know the faults on their vehicles and tended to make do. They built up some sort of loyalty towards their employers and did not report faults. He went on: "It is not sufficient to say to a driver report any faults '. Some sort of regular inspection must be made on vehicles."

Mr. Hanlon was hearing the case of Edgar Lawson, Darlington, who on May 31 this year had a GV9 prohibition order issued on one of his vehicles. Lawson, who is engaged in the building trade, has 21 vehicles in his fleet, all on C licence. He said that he employed fitters to maintain his vehicles and drivers were asked to report any faults.

Mr. Hanlon agreed to revoke a suspension of 28 days imposed by him earlier this year it Lawson agreed that his fleet would be regularly " docked " and overhauled. Lawson agreed to this.

Another haulier, who had a similar notice and sentence, also had his suspension removed. He was Gordon Conroy, of Haswell, Co. Durham.

Conroy told the chairman that the vehicle which had been stopped had just come from a garage after being reconditioned. But the examiner found that a lock washer on a steering-arm nut was missing. Since the incident Conroy had complained to the garage owner, who admitted that the exclusion of the washer when the lorry was being reconditioned was their fault.

Mr. Hanlon said: "In view of the circumstances, I am willing to take no further action in this case," But another contractor was not so fortunate. Mr. Arnold Simpson, a director of William Simpson of Crook, had one of his vehicles suspended for a month.

Mr. George Robson, on behalf of Simpson, said that his vehicle was found to have six faults, one of them in the braking system. He added: " There was no question of willful neglect and the danger to the public was not great."

The LA: "I have listened to Mr. Simpson and I think there was danger. I do not think 28 days' suspension is excessive. I have seriouslyconsidered whether the vehicle should not have been put off the road for three months.

LICENSING NEWS: PAGE 45


comments powered by Disqus