AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

TWO INTERESTING CASES IN LANCASHIRE.-By "LEGAL."

8th June 1916, Page 15
8th June 1916
Page 15
Page 15, 8th June 1916 — TWO INTERESTING CASES IN LANCASHIRE.-By "LEGAL."
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?

A driver was summoned under Article III, Section 3, of the Motor Cars (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, for driving a motorcar with a trailer attached without having on the trailer "a person competent to apply efficiently the brake." The following facts were either proved or admitted :— (1) The trailer brake was constructed on the principle that it cduld be applied from• the nnstorcar independently of the brakes of the motorcar.

(2) On the day in question (for some reason unexplained) the chain which connected the trailer brake with the lever on the motorcar had become detached.

A plea of "Not guilty" was entered, and it was contended (I) That Section 3, Article HI, under-which the prosecution was instituted, stated that it shall not be necessary to " carry upon the vehicle (trailer) a person competent to apply efficiently the brake," provided that, inter alia, "the brakes of the vehicle drawn can be applied from the motorcar by a person upon the motorcar independently of the brakes of the latter.'

(2) That it was admitted that the brake of the vehicle drawn was so constructed as to comply with the proviso mentioned in the above section. It was true that on the day in question the brake was "ineffective," but that was not the offence charged. The offence charged was that of failing to carry upon the trailer a person competent to. apply the brake, under Section 3, Article III. Section 2, Article III, contained the offence of having defective brakes, but that was a substantially different offence from the one charged, and was under a different section.

The Justices dismissed the case.

At the Bolton County Police Court, on 24th May, a user was summUned under Section 3, Sub-section 1, of the Motor Gar Act, 1903, for permitting a person not duly licensed to drive a motorcar. The facts proved or admitted were :—

(1) The vehicle in question was a heavy motorcar.

(2) For convenience and safety two persons were em. ployed on the motor—one, a licensed driver, to manage and control the brakes, gears, and steam valves; the other, a youth of 16 (and therefore unlicensed), to steer the vehicle under the direction of the licensed driver. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the youth who acted as " steerer " was not required to be licensed on the ground that he was not "the driver" within the meaning of the, Act, and that the " driver " was the person who attended to the brakes, gears, and steam valves, as he was the person in control of the motorcar.

• The Justices convicted. • The question is one of considerable interest, and, although the decision of the Justices would probably not be overruled, thettdefendant's case is not unarguable. In the' first place, what is meant by " the driver." Surely he is the person who "controls" the vehicle, whether the vehicle be propelled by animals or mechanical power. The word " driver " has descended to us from the days when vehicles were propelled exclusively by other than mechanical means and when, of course, it -was customary for only one person to exercise control.

We have, therefore, grown accustomed to consider "the driver" as the person who " guides" the vehicle, whether the guiding be done by means of reins or a steering wheel. This, I suggest, is not the true criterion and the measure should be not the "steering," but the "controlling." This is surely the common-sense way of looking at the question. With regard to heavy motorcars which are comparatively slow-moving vehicles, the person Who has the pawer of stopping, advancing or reversing the car is surely the person who is in control rather than the man at the wheel, who can only direct the vehicle -at the will of the other person.

.11 this is the correct view, then the person steering is not the driver within the meaning of the Act, though the Courts might hold that both men were "the driver," and, therefore, both must be licensed.

The point is of importance to users, particularly at the present time when so many employers have had to "lay sip" a number of their motors through the impossibility of procuring the necessary drivers, while others are using youths under age as steersmen in order to overcome the difficulty of lack of men.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus