MUST WE USE SEATBELTS?
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• All the new lorries we buy are now fitted with seatbelts. but we are not sure whether it is compulsory for them to be used. What is the law on this ?
Could they be removed ?
• The seatbelt legislation is complicated so we will go through it from the beginning. We assume the vehicles in question are over 3,050kg unladen weight and are, therefore. "heavy motorcars".
Regulation 46 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 requires a heavy motor car first used on or after 1 October 1988 to be fitted, as a minimum, with seatbelt anchorage points for lap belts for the driver's seat and any forward-facing front seat alongside the driver's seat.
Regulation 47 requires seatbelts to be fitted in vehicles which require anchorage points, but Regulation 47(4) goes on to provide that seat belts do not have to be fitted in a goods vehicle over 3,500kg gross weight first used on or after 10ctober 1988.
This means there is no requirement for your lorries to be fitted with any seatbelts.
However, the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993 state that where seatbelts are fitted in the front of the vehicle—even if not required by the regulations—they must be worn by any person over 14 years of age. The seatbelts could be removed without contravening the Construction and Use Regulations, but whether or not that would be a wise move is a different matter.
N O MORAL B LAME • This company and a driver were recently prosecuted for an overloading offence. I have often read in CMthat if a person is not to blame for an offence he should get an absolute discharge. But we were fined and appealed against the fine. We told the judge there is a High Court decision on the point but we could not remember the name of it. He dismissed the appeal and ordered us to pay prosecution costs.
Can you give me the name of the High Court case in case this happens again ?
• The case you have in mind is probably the High Court case of Hart vs Bex 119571 Crim LR 622. This is often put before magistrates' and Crown Courts
where the defence argues that the defendant, though liable in law for the offence, was morally blameless.
In that case Bex, a lorry driver, had been charged with using an artic when the brakes were not maintained in good and efficient working order. He had braked to stop behind other traffic but the brakes failed and an accident occurred.
It was found that a hole in a brake pipe had been caused by an electric cable shorting out nearby. The magistrates found the braking system was properly adjusted and that it was not part of Bess duties to inspect the braking system. They acquitted him of the charge.
The prosecution appealed to the High Court, which ruled that the obligation to maintain the braking system was an absolute one so a person who drove a vehicle with a defect in the brakes committed an offence even though the defect was due to a fault in the mechanism.
The court decided that Bex was technically guilty, but as it was not his duty to inspect the brakes the court regretted that he had been prosecuted and the magistrates should be told it was a case for an absolute discharge.
Over the years this decision has been used by defence advocates for submitting that where a person has no knowledge of an offence and it has arisen through no fault on his part, he should be regarded as morally blameless and no fine should be imposed.
We cannot say if this decision would have reduced or eliminated your fine because we do not know all the facts—we do not know what you were carrying at the time, or if your previous experience (if any) of carrying the same load for the same customer had been always within the weight limits.
You say the driver was fined as well as the company. It might have benefited the driver if he had mentioned Travel-Gas (Midlands) Ltd vs Reynolds [1989] RTR 75 to the court. That case was an overloading prosecution and the High Court said that if there was no special culpability on the part of the driver it would be wholly unnecessary to proceed against him as well as the owner of the vehicle.
public inquiry because they had received a few prohibition notices over the years. The letter from the Traffic Commissioner's office said I had to attend the inquiry, said my finances were in question and required me to send copies of my bank statements and annual accounts to the office at least seven days before the inquiry.
Can they do this?
• While the Traffic Commissioner can question your finances, he has no power to "require" you to send any financial information to his office unless you were, at the same time, applying for a licence variation.
If an operator has a history of poor maintenance, a TC will often take action against the licence holder under Section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. He can say there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder since the issue of the licence, in that he may no longer have sufficient financial resources to maintain his vehicles.
In the case of a standard licence, a TC can also take action under Section 27 by alleging that the licence holder is no longer of appropriate financial standing.
In either case, it is then for the operator to show, at the public inquiry, that he has the necessary finances available.
Neither Section 26 nor Section 27 gives a TC power to "require" the operator to send him financial information in advance of the public inquiry. It is settled law that a TC is a creature of statute. The only "requirements" he can make are those contained in the law.
However, the situation is different in the case of a licence applicant or a licence holder applying for a variation.
Section 8 of the act deals with the information a licence applicant has to provide. In Subsection 4 it states that a licence applicant must give the TC particulars of his financial resources and any further information which the TC might reasonably require in relation to the application.
Section 17(2) states that a person applying for a licence variation must give the Traffic Commissioner such information as he may reasonably require for disposing of the application.