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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
a I refer to your answer to the third question in
Page 105
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
the Q & A page of your April 10 issue. I find the first part of your answer rather surprising as it indicates that the -part-time driver" can work and drive for a second employer to the maximum allowed by the 1968 Act so long as he is not employed by his first employer as a "driver". Surely, this contravenes the spirit of the Act as clearly expressed in Section 95 (1): ". . protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where the drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from fatigue."
The answer to the fourth question on the same page also indicates a means of enabling drivers to increase their earnings by increasing their weekly hours over the 60 limit.
Is it possible that the courts will be inclined to interpret the law to the disadvantage of the driver working more than 60 hours per week or excessive hours in any one day?
AWe agree that the methods used in some instances (examples were shown in our Q and A columns on April 10) for drivers to work over the normal limits are against the spirit of the law. But it is the letter of the law which counts and it seems certain that there will always be some people who will find good reasons for interpreting (seemingly legally) the law to their own benefit.
The courts have to administer the law as it is written, and they are limited in their powers to apply what they feel is the spirit of the law in cases where they are convinced that there is an outright attempt to evade it.
It is difficult to predict how courts will act, but in cases such as those that appeared in our Q and A page on April 10 there would appear to be little that they could do unless a case of dangerous driving or similar arose as a result of the man's fatigue.