Wheelnut read my posting,the fact is that it is not the coppers who have the right to see the tachos not in use its the ministry,NOT the coppers they can only ask to see them and like I said if you do not feel like you want to be nice and roll over, they need a warrant to get them off you,I never said you dont need to carry them.This was the law if anyone can say its changed please add where and when it was done,after all as another poster put all coppers are (ZB)s,couldnt agree more. 
Froggy Wrote:
Wheelnut read my posting,the fact is that it is not the coppers who have the right to see the tacho
s not in use its the ministry,NOT the coppers
The law is very clear about who can examine records and the law hasnt changed for many years.
The tachograph regulation - EC Regulation 3821/85 -states that whenever requested by an authorised inspecting officer to do so, a driver must be able to produce record sheets for the current week and the last day of the previous week on which he drove a vehicle subject to EC hours’ law.
An ‘authorised inspecting officer’ is not defined but will include police and VI examiners because they are authorised under Section 99 of the Transport Act 1968 to examine records.
Under Section 99 an officer (ie a policeman, a VI examiner or a person authorised for the purpose by a Traffic Commissioner) may on production of his authority if required (except that police in uniform do not have to produce an authority), require any person to produce and permit him to inspect and copy:
a. any book or register which that person is required under Section 98 (ie record books for drivers on national work exempt the EC rules) to carry or have in his possession;
b. any book or register as in (a) which that person is required to preserve;
c. any record sheet the person is required under EC tachograph rules to retain or be able to produce;
d. if the person is the owner of a vehicle to which the hours’ and records’ law applies, any other document which the official may reasonably require to inspect to check that the Transport Act hours’ and records law is being complied with;
e. any book, register or other document required to be kept by the EC rules or which the officer may reasonably require to inspect to check that the EC hours’ and records rules are being complied with.
Sorry to get in late here. But, was this trailer an MT or partly loaded triaxle Tautliner ?. There are some of these trailers that do seem to have a tendancy to lift one side in certain situations. If it is MT or partly loaded, (front end), and does lift, I would have said that the chances of it tipping is slim. Tautliners are very light and can flex along their length easily, the Unit should stop it going anywhere, within reason.
This post will probably put me into the do-gooder slot finding fault, simply for quoting the law as it is!
I havent been in transport as long as some on this site, but I have had long enough to know where to find the legislation.
IMHO there are too many cafe tales about what is legal and not.
illegal is a sick bird.
Yep I agree with wheel nut
If a bobby asks for previous Tacho’s you have to give them to him/her
In my experience not many would because most dont have a clue how to read them! 
Saying that again in my experiance not many drivers do either!
Too many do-gooders on the forum that’s why newbies and even old-hands don’t want to share experiences because the do-good brigade will be out in force finding fault.
thats not the case it 's about putting over a proffesional image to others that we don’t all rip up the highway ,break hours rules ,overload our trucks and look like bags of [zb] in our dirty smelly trucks parked .
o and rob "i ain’t no angel trust me 
flatbedman:
cliff, i have to agree, i think this site is turning into something its not meant to be.paul
glad its not just me who thinks like this.
As for the wheels off the ground charge. Plead guilty, attend court and depending on the precise circumstances either plead mis-judgement of circumstances with an unfamiliar load or plead momentary lapse of concentration. Being smartly dressed, polite, presenting a clean licence and shwoing deference to the court will have a far greater effect that blaming bricks, dogs, deer or anything else. They’re far more leniant to those who say “I got it wrong, I’m only human and I’ll try to make sure it doesn’t happen again” than those who desperately try to shirk the responsibilty for what actually happened.
There are only two ways to get off of something like this. The first is to claim you were having a sneezing fit, the 2nd is to claim of being stung by a bee or wasp. Both would cause a loss of control of the vehicle that would be out of the control of the driver. However, these would have needed to have been stated to the officer at the time. they are unlikely to work after the offence. By the way, these defences also work well when applied to rear ending a vehicle at a roundabout.
I 'm not legally qualified, but I’d argue for a reduction of the offence to driving without due care and attention. In order to do this you’re friend is going to have to do some work. He’s going to need a raft of character witnesses as to his professionalism as a driver, he’ll probably want to submit his tacho readings as evidence that he was not tired, if he can get a witness from the trailer manufacturer to agree that it is possible for the trailer to lift on that particular type of bend then he’d be home and dry. Alternatively, he should try to find a Driving Instructor who would attest to the fact that the speed he was going was safe with a modern trailer.
The fact he was only doing 17mph has to be the critical factor here, although I don’t know the first thing about driving an LGV 17mph in a car drivers mind is not fast (bearing in mind the magistrate will probably be a car driver) and is certainly not the speed one would associate with a reckless driving.
Basically, he has to do something to force the CPS to reduce or dismiss the charge and just offering to plead guilty to a lesser offence may not be enough.
He also needs a Solicitor who’s fully conversant with RTA offences, I suspect the onus of proof on proving dangerous driving is far higher than due care and attention. I mean in my mind , the facts the trailer didn’t fall, no one was injured and the speed he was going would all seem to act in your friends favour, but I doubt it’s enough on it’s own.
Oh yes and always always turn up in a suit with a decent haircut if possible, never pull faces or speak out of turn, no smiling or laughing, this includes disagreeing with the police officer as he is giving evidence. If possible make sure his wife is there in the court with him, similarly smartly dressed.
He absolutely must instruct a Solicitor, no doubt about it.
I made a mistake in my piece, which is why I suggested he get a Solicitor, your friend would need a witness from the trailer manufacturer to state that the wheels shouldn’t have lifted at the speed he was going and/or a Driving Instructor to state that the speed he was going was safe, given the circumstances.
Any evidence in his favour from a qualified LGV instructer would go down well with the court in my opinion.
The other reason your friend needs a Solicitor, is that the Police may have overdone the charge, Dangerous Driving is a serious offence and that allied with the other facts mentioned above, along with the fact the wheels were only off the ground for 1.4 seconds may mean that the Solicitor would choose to defend that charge than plea bargin for a guilty plea on a lesser offence.
However, this would involve an element of risk which is why your friend needs a Solicitor who know’s what he’s doing when it comes to LGV’s, he doesn’t want a Solicitor who’s never dealt with a charge against an LGV driver.
Oh yes, and if he didn’t mention bees, bricks and sneezing at the time then I wouldn’t have thought it a good idea to bring that in now.