Weights and measures down under
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MOST MACHINES inviting you to check your weight have sometimes a depressing chart telling you what you ought to weigh as against the evidence on the dial. The assumption is that experts from a number of scientific disciplines have reached a unanimous decision on the ideal.
Even more experts have given their opinion on the appropriate weight limits for commercial vehicles. They include manufacturers and users, road makers, politicians, scientists, journalists, civil servants and civil trusters.
But few of them agree with each other. Each country makes up its own mind on a compromise that satisfies nobody. The situation moves one step further from reality when countries such as the members of the EEC try to harmonise their widely differing systems.
In the circumstances, it may be thought surprising that there is even agreement on a few points, such as maximum vehicle widths.
On most others, there is not only uncertainty because governments cannot make up their minds, but frustration when development made possible by technical progress is held back for lack of even a small concession, such as a few inches on the permitted length, or a more major change such as a substantial increase in maximum laden weight.
Even within the EEC, not every member has denied itself the freedom to make new regulations while the subject is being discussed interminably in Brussels. The Italians, for one, have recently introduced substantial changes.
Elsewhere in the world, there is nothing to prevent the rules from being brought up to date. Following my recent reference to the stalemate in the EEC, a correspondent has sent me information about new laws passed or to be passed in Australia.
Each state has examined national recommendations on size and weight limits and is putting them into effect in its own time and with Aehat is considers appropriate variations. Only South Australia has not yet complied.
New South Wales is the latest to bring in regulations, passed on April 28. Vehicles registered after that date must meet new requirements on axle spacing and load sharing.
There must be no more than 2m between two axles that are linked, or 3.2m between the outermost of three linked axles. Groups of more than three axles are prohibited, and groups of either two or three axles must be provided with an effective system of load-sharing. This last requirement does not apply to twin-steer groups, although they are subject to the 2m limit.
For one axle with single tyres, the maximum load is 5.4 tonnes, increasing to 8.5 tonnes for dual tyres. For a tandem axle with single tyres the limit is 10 tonnes, increasing to 12 tonnes for a mixture of singles and duals, and to 15 tonnes for all duals. For three axles, whether the tyres are single or mixed, the limit is 15 tonnes, increasing to 18 tonnes for all duals If it is not easy to make an exact comparison on these figur alone, British operators will be on more familiar ground with t general width limit in Australia of 2.5m and the overall length 11m for rigid vehicles. A limit of 16m for the length of an articulat vehicle gives the Australians a significant advantage, as does t maximum of 36 tonnes for the gross vehicle or combination weigl Geographical variations in Australia may well be much grea• than those within the EEC. This has not prevented almost complE uniformity throughout the continent. There are minor differenc _between the regulations in NSW and, for example, Victoria, but it claimed that these do not present any problem to vehicles inter-state journeys.
The example provided of a significant variation is, a tri• mysteriously, the higher axle-load rating in the distant parts Western Australia. It is pointed out also that standards of ro. construction are not the same throughout the country, so that a ric uniformity in the new regulations would involve a reduction to t lowest a ppropiate weight standards.
This enlightened approach may have a lesson for the UK and tl EEC. If roads in some of the countries, such as the UK, are so b. that no increase in the present weight limits can be contemplate there should be nothing to stop the EEC making its own rem mendations to which the members could conform as their circui stances improved.
If this goes against the EEC grain, there are many other peor who have suggested that the organisation should re-examine principles and procedures. The issue of vehicle weights at dimensions is a useful one on which to focus.
There must be some aberrant interest involved when one count cannot contemplate an increase beyond a maximum of 32 tons ( 32.520kg), while others would be willing to have almost half much again. No variations of geography or of road standards ct justify such a gap.
It may be fanciful to suggest, as the chart on the supermark weighing machine seems to do, that there is an ideal weight whii can be ascertained by a sufficiently diligent enquiry. On the oth hand, there must be an approximation to the ideal, to which the EE discussions give no clue.
Moreover, limits that may be right at one time should increa with improvements in vehicle design and other factors. Persiste refusal to change outmoded legislation can only hold back progreE
...by cm in