Road traffic law

Breath test(DPP v Furby [2000] The Times, 23 MarchA motorist who had deliberately failed/refused to supply a specimen of breath for analysis cannot rely on an impediment of which he had been unaware at the time of the request to supply the specimen as providing a reasonable excuse for his failure/refusal, where the motorist at a later date discovered that he was suffering from reduced lung capacity which would have made the provision of a specimen of breath impossible).

Nor may a motorist insist on being able to consult a legal textbook before providing a specimen of breath for analysis (DPP v Noe [2000], The Times, 19 April, where the Divisional Court ruled that the motorist had no reasonable excuse for failing to supply a specimen).

Speed limit(Wawrzynczyk v Staffordshire Constabulary Chief Constable [2000] The Times, 16 March).Where a temporary speed limit is in force on a stretch of road under an order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.14, the order is not invalidated by speed restriction signs so placed as to suggest that the order applied to a longer stretch of road than was in fact the case.

TachographsCantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate [2000] The Times, 13 April).The provision in s.99(1)(bb) of the Transport Act 1968 empowering an authorised person to require any person (such as an operator of goods vehicles) to produce any record sheet which that person is required to retain by art.14(2) of the Tachograph Regulation (or is required to be able to produce under art.15(7)) for inspection and copying has to be interpreted in the light of the requirement in art.14(2) to hand over such documents.

Accordingly, an authorised officer might require the documents to be handed over, although in such circumstances the operator would normally be allowed to make copies before doing so.

Use of a vehicleRichmond upon Thames London Borough Council v Morton [2000] RTR 79.It is well established that when a statutory provision refers to 'using, or causing or permitting the use' of a vehicle, the owner of the vehicle can only be treated as the person using it if he is the driver or if the vehicle is being driven by his employee for the purposes of the owner's business.

If the statute states that 'no person shall use, drive or cause or permit to be driven' any vehicle (cf the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985, art.3), the term 'use' must be construed more widely and may include use by any person whose vehicle is being used by him or for his purposes and on his behalf, and there is no need for a link between owner and driver in the nature of a contract of service.

Wheel-clampingVine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, [2000] The Times, 12 AprilA wheel-clamper who has clamped a vehicle parked unlawfully has the onus of proving that the motorist saw and understood (or possibly turned a blind eye to) a notice that vehicles left in that place without permission were liable to be clamped where the motorist recovered the costs of obtaining release of her car and a small sum for the loss of its use.

by Paul Niekirk, barrister