Changes in CM Regulations, 8
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
REGULATION 100 of the Motor Vehicle (Construction andUse) Regulations 1978 requires that all glass or other transparent material fitted to motor vehicles be maintained in such condition that it does not obscure the vision of the driver.
Early laminated safety glass was prone to discoloration and staining with age and the use of a vehicle with a windscreen in this condition infringed the regulations. Modern techniques have prevented these defects from appearing in safety glass but the offence is still committed when drivers stick triangular symbols on their windscreens,to advertise the fact that they have spent some time in various holiday resorts — if the display interferes with the driver's vision.
Regulation 101 deals with the maintenance of brakes. In general terms, the reulations requires that all the brakes fitted to motor vehicles and trailers be maintained in good and efficient working order and properly adjusted and kept up to, at least, the minimum efficiency required by the regulation dealing with that particular type of vehicle.
In several stated cases it has been held that both the driver and his employer may be charged with having "used'. the vehicle on a road with defective brakes and that the offence is -absolute.No mens rea need be shown (mens rea is a term used by lawyers to describe the guilty or blameable state of mind which is generally necessary to constitute a crime).
Its practical effect in cases of this kind is that the employer, who is the owner of a vehicle found with defective brakes, is guilty of this offence as well as the driver, although he, the employer, is completely un aware of the defective state of the vehicle.
The court would, of course, in considering the penalty to impose, be interested in the way the vehicle had been maintained. lf, for example, the records of inspections and maintenance were produced to the court to satisfy the magistrates that everything possible had been done to prevent such defects occurring, then a small penalty would result, When the Licensing Authority is considering the renewal of an operator's licence, prosecutions for dangerous defects in vehicles are taken into consideration. The fact that a small penalty was imposed would indicate that the operator had not been seriously at fault and the renewal of the licence would not be put in jeopardy.
In Watson v Muir 1938, JC 181, it was held that it was desirable that the owner of the vehicle and all others who may be criminally affected by the test should have the opportunity of being present when the brakes were tested, but evidence of a test where the owner is not present is, nevertheless, admissible.
Regulation 102 requires that steering gear be 'maintained in good and efficient working order and properly adjusted, while 1024 makes the same requirement concerning seat belts and seat-belt anchorage points.
The maintenance of windscreen wipers, petrol tanks, silencers, speedometers and tyres are all dealt with in this part of the Regulations and have been discussed in previous articles.
Regulation 97 requires that all motor vehicles and trailers be maintained so that no danger is caused, or is likely to be caused. This Regulation covers any defect in the vehicle which is not dealt with specifically by another regulation. For example, an offence of defective brakes would be dealt with under Regulation 101, but a prosecution for a cracked chassis or a broken spring would be taken under Regulation 97.
For the offence to be complete, the use of the vehicle must cause danger or a possibility of danger. No offence would be committed, for example, if a lorry was used with a badly buckled wing, however unsightly it may be, but if there was a split in it with a jagged edge protruding so that it was likely to injure a passing pedestrian, then the regulation would be contravened.
As well as covering the vehicle and its accessories, this section also requires that no danger is caused by the weight, distribution, packing or adjustment of the load.
The second part of Regulation 97 is of such importance to goods vehicle operators, dealing as it does with the security of loads, that it is worth while quoting it in full. It reads: The load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at all times be so secured, if necessary by phsical restraint other than its own weight, and be in such a position that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused to any person or property by reason of the load or any part thereof falling or being blown from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or any part thereof in relation to the vehicle., Unlike the earlier part of this Regulation, in this section an offence is committed if nuisance is caused. To comply with the Regulation, loads of sand or other dusty substances must be sheeted down. The Department of the Environment's code of practice Safety of Loads on Vehicles (HMSO, price 30p) is a very helpful publication dealing generally with the securing of loads. Although not in itself law, the code, if complied with, would provide a good defence to any prosecution for an offence taken under Regulation 97.
The third and final paragraph of Regulation 97 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 or nuisance to any person in or on the vehicle or on a road.
In British Road Services and Another v Owen (1971) 135 JP 399, an artic, owned by BRS, when carrying fork-lift trucks loaded to a height of 17ft 3m, collided with a bridge with a height of 16ft 9in. The appellants and their driver were charged with using a vehicle for a purpose for which it was so unsuitable that danger was caused under Regulation 97 (3).
The vehicle was mechanically sound and the load was properly secured. It was held that when deciding if a vehicle was suitable, the nature and features of the route chosen must be considered, and that in this particular case the vehicle had become unsuitable within the meaning of the regulations at the time when it approached the bridge.
In Gifford v Whittaker (1942) 1 All ER 604 it was held that a lorry driver was guilty when charged with not properly securing the load, even though he himself took no part in the loading operation.
by Les Oldridge, T.Eng (CEO, MIMI, AMIRTE