Motor insuranceU nder Directive 72/166/EEC on the requirement to hold motor insurance (as supplemented by Directive 84/5/EEC and Directive 90/232/EEC) a policy of motor insurance may not exclude the insurer's liability for damage caused by a driver who was intoxicated (even where national law permits exclusion of liability for damage to property by such a driver).

It is possible, under the Directives, for the insurer to retain a right of recovery in respect of damages from the driver (see Bernaldez (Case C 129/94) [1996] The Times, 6 May, ECJ).

Directive 90/232/EEC requires motor insurance to cover liability for personal injuries to all passengers other than the driver arising out of the use of a vehicle (art 1).

This is effectively incorporated into English law by the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1992 (SI 92/3036), which inserted subs (4A) into s.145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and which excluded liability in respect of a driver (R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p.

National Insurance Guarantee Corporation plc [1996] The Times, 3 June).Motor Insurers' BureauA claim under the Motor Insurers' Bureau uninsured drivers' agreement by a passenger in a vehicle will not be defeated by showing that they knew that there was no sufficient third-party insurance cover in force.

The agreement excludes, however, the bureau's liability to make payment in cases where, in addition, it is shown that the passenger was 'using' the vehicle.

The concept of 'use' under the agreement is the same as 'use' for the purposes of statutory third-party insurance cover; and sharing a common purpose for a journey with the driver does not constitute such 'use' (Hatton v Hall [1996] The Times, 15 May).ParkingUnder the decriminalisation of parking provisions, the owner of a vehicle may be liable for payment of penalty notices issued in respect of it.

The owner of the vehicle is the person by whom it is kept (Road Traffic Act 1981, s.82(2)).

Who is the 'keeper' of the vehicle is a question of fact to be determined by the parking adjudicator.

The presumption that the owner is the person in whose name the vehicle is registered (see s.82(3)) is rebuttable (R v Parking Adjudicator, ex p Wandsworth London Borough Council [1996] The Times, 22 July).TachographsA vehicle used exclusively for delivering and collecting builders' skips (as part of a commercial operation) does not fall within the exemption from the requirement to fit and use a tachograph provided by art 4(6) of reg 3820/85 (EEC) for vehicles used in connection with refuse collection and disposal, as the vehicle is not used for a general service performed in the public interest (Swain v McCaul [1996] The Times, 11 July).Traffic signsTraffic may not stop on any length of road along which double white lines are placed in the centre (Traffic Signs and General Directions 1994 (SI 94/1519, reg 26(2)(a)), unless the traffic falls within a category specified in reg 26(3).

One such category is stopping to enable persons to be picked up or set down (reg 26(3)(a)(i)).

The words at the end of reg 26(3)(a): 'If the vehicle cannot be used for such a purpose without stopping on the length of road' do not apply to the whole of reg 26(3)(a) but only to reg 26(3)(a)(iii), so that a taxi driver picking up a passenger on such a stretch of road could rely on reg 26(3)(a)(i) and does not have to show that the vehicle could not otherwise be used without stopping on that stretch (McKenzie v DPP [1996] The Times, 14 May).