a l am a heavy goods vehicle driver and I was
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
asked to take out a loaded vehicle though the load did not look secure to me. On these grounds I refused to drive the vehicle. My employer contends that l was unreasonable and that proof of the security of the load was that it reached its destination intact with another driver. Do you think that I was right?
Ai, is our opinion that you behaved correctly in refusing to drive a vehicle if you felt that the load was insecure.
Regulation 90 (2) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1973 states that the load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at _
'a-II times be so secured or be in such a position that danger is not likely to be caused to any person by reason of the load or any part thereof falling from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or any part thereof falling from the the vehicle.
Note that it is not necessary for a load to fall from a vehicle or to shift in transit for an offence to be committed. It is sufficient that danger is likely to be caused.
Moreover, further considerations have been added to Regulation 90 by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1976. Now it is necessary to secure a load by a physical restraint other than its own weight and the load must be in such a position so that neither danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused.
Thus, not only danger but nuisance is involved. The implication is that loose material, packaging and so on must not be allowed to fall or blow off the vehicle or even be likely to do so.