I NOW T
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge, T.Eng(CEI), MIMI, AMIRTE
Brakes check
REGULATION 94 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973 deals with the maintenance of brakes.
The Regulation requires that every part of every braking system and the means by which such systems are operated must at all times be maintained in good and efficient working order and properly adjusted, and in such a condition that the efficiency laid down for that particular type of vehicle can be reached.
In Green v Burnett (1954) 3 All ER 273 a driver and his employer were prosecuted for using a motor van when the brakes were not properly maintained. The driver, in the ordinary course of his employment, was driving the van when it collided with a stationary lorry as a result of its brakes failing.
The brakes were examined by an expert who found that a part within the casting of the master cylinder had broken some time before the collision. The broken part could have been discovered only by dismantling the master cylinder.
The driver had no responsibility for the maintenance of the van, this being carried out by a firm of automobile engineers, to whom he took the vehicle when he felt it needed attention. He had made no complaint concerning the brakes to the engineers but on one occasion before the collision he had noticed some deterioration in the braking system but he did not report it.
The magistrates dismissed the case because: • (i) It was not the driver's duty to maintain the brakes
(ii) The failure of the brakes were due to a mechanical .failure
(iii) There was no evidence that the owners had failed to maintain the brakes as they had made arrangements with a firm of motor engineers to do so (iv) The defective condition of the brakes arose from circumstance's over which the driver had no control.
The prosecutor appealed. It was held in the Appeal Court that contravention of this Re gulation constituted an "absolute" offence and no mens rea (guilty state of mind) need be shown.
Since a master uses a vehicle through his servant, when the servant is on his master's business, both the driver and the company were guilty.
Another famous case concerning defective brakes is James and Son Ltd v &nee (1954) with the same reference as the case just discussed. In this case, the appellants, a limited company, were the owners of a lorry and trailer fitted with cable brakes which had to be connected each time the trailer was coupled up and disconnected when the trailer was disconnected from the towing vehicle.
The police stopped the vehicle and found that the two cables had not been connected. Apparently the vehicles had left the owner's premises with the connection properly made and the braking system working. The driver and his boy assistant, both servants of the appellant company, took the vehicles to premises where the trailer was uncoupled.
After loading, the driver left it to the boy assistant to couple up the trailer, but in doing so, the assistant failed to couple the cables properly. The driver did not check the coupling and the brakes of the trailer did not work.
The driver was convicted of using the trailer with defective brakes and the owners with
permitting the offence. The owners appealed and it was held that as the charge was one of permitting the use of the vehicle, the company could not be guilty unless some person for whose criminal act they were responsible actually -permitted" as opposed to "committed" the offence. As this was not the case their appeal was allowed.
It would seem that the police preferred the wrong charge in this case for if they had charged the owners with -using" the vehicle they would have been found guilty in the same way as in the previous case discussed_
In Watson v Muir (1938) JC 181, it was held that the owner of the vehicle and all others who may be criminally affected by a test should have the opportunity of 'being present at a test, but evidence of a test where the owner is not present is nevertheless admissible.
Looking at anotheraspect of legislation concerning trailers the distance between a drawing vehicle and a trailer coupled by a rope or chain, must not exceed 4.5 metres (15 feet).
Where the distance between the drawing vehicle and the trailer exceeds 1.5 metres (5 feet), irrespective of the type of coupling, then the means whereby the two vehicles are attached must be made clearly visible to other persons using the road within a reasonable distance from either side of the vehicle.
The exact way in which this should be done is not stipulated, but a red rag tied in the centre of a tow-rope or a drawbar painted with black and yellow stripes seems to be the sort of precautions which are sensible and which would comply with the law.
Regulation 1,19 requires that
when a trailer is detached fror its drawing vehicle one of it wheels must be prevented fron revolving by setting the braki or by the use of a chain.
Trailers must not be used fo carrying passengers for hire o reward although there is special exemption for pas. sengers being carried in E broken down vehicle which k being towed or carried on a trailer in consequence of the breakdown.
If advantage is taken of this concession a speed of 30 mph must not be exceeded, and if more than eight persons are carried a rigid tow-bar must be used.
Passengers must not be carried in trailer caravans with less than four sheds or in those with two close coupled wheels on each side. This rule does not apply to caravans being tested by manufacturers, dealers or repairers of caravans (Regulation 126).
Exemptions for psv
Generally speaking psv are prohibited from drawing trailers but an empty psv can draw another empty one in an emergency. There are also exemptions for psv to tow a gas trailer or in certain cases, where the use of a trailer is a condition of a road service licence, a trailer may be drawn if a certifying officer approves (Regulation 127).
Regulation 117 makes it an offence for any person to open a motor vehicle door so as to cause injury or danger to any person.
Anyone who has ever ridden a pedal cycle will be well aware of the danger caused by the careless opening of doors on motor vehicles; to be suddenly confronted by a door opening directly in one's path is a frightening experience.
Although it is generally the driver who commits this offence, the regulation covers anyone so a driver's mate opening the nearside door and injuring a pedestrian could be equally guilty.
The large rear doors on vans which swing around through 270' to be fastened to the side of the vehicle for unloading purposes could also, if carelessly handled, cause this type of offence.