AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

NO, MINISTER . . .

18th August 1988, Page 22
18th August 1988
Page 22
Page 22, 18th August 1988 — NO, MINISTER . . .
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Peter Bottomley's efforts to persuade magistrates to raise substantially the level of penalties for overloading (CM 4-10 August) are, in my view, inappropriate and unwelcome.

While Bottomley's crusade • for continuing improvements in road safety is to be admired (and will also be politically useful to him), he is apparently oblivious to the gross unfairness of the law governing the loading of commercial vehicles.

Overloading is an absolute offence (which in itself is contrary to the usual concept of British justice) and until he is prepared to recognise that the introduction into the Act of a "due diligence" clause is no more than fair and reasonable, then it is right and proper for magistrates to continue to structure penalties, according to how they see the extent of guilt of the operator concerned.

Bottomley has so far implacably refused to acknowledge that "due diligence" should be recognised by the courts and, instead, seeks to persuade magistrates to apply maximum penalties, even in the many cases where the operator could not have prevented the offence.

The fact is that the accuracy of dynamic-type weighing machines is highly suspect. Moreover, despite the existence of a reasonable number of platform type weighbridges, these are frequently unable to provide a means to accurately check axle weights. Also, on-board weighing devices are both expensive and not yet of proven reliability.

I believe that there are very few operators who deliberately set out to profit from overloading their vehicles and certainly, those who do should be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

Bottomley has pointed out elsewhere that enforcement staff do not initiate proceedings in the case of marginal overloads and that a defence of "proceeding to the nearest weighbridge to check-weigh" is already a defence.

Unfortunately, few public weighbridges offer this facility outside the hours of 08:00 to 17:00 and there are case histories of operators being prosecuted and heavily penalised for clearly inadvertent overloads of below 5%.

The Road Haulage Association does not condone overloading, or any other illegal activity, but it does strongly seek to obtain a fair and just working environment for its members. It is quite wrong that what is certainly our most vital single industry should in some aspects be seen to be criminal until proved otherwise, and then denied any opportunity to establish innocence.

It is my view that a "due diligence" clause should be allowed and also that the loaders of vehicles should be held equally responsible with the operator. Come on Mr Bottomley, we have a very good case so why not concede gracefully.

J B Hempsall, RHA, National vice-chairman, Hempsall Bulk Transport, Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Tags

Organisations: Road Haulage Association
Locations: Newark

comments powered by Disqus