Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120


18th January 1986
Page 49
Page 49, 18th January 1986 — SUPPRESSING NEEDS
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?

Only two months remain before a new standard governing spray suppression comes into force — a standard which may be overturned by pending EEC legislation. We review current and foreseeable requirements

kPPALLIN(; ignorance as to the anti-spray measures in all sectors of the industry." That is what : supplier of spray suppression iipment, Aerodyne of Harrow, says it . found recently, and this has

nupted the company to offer a no.rge, anti-spray law consultancy vice.

learly not every operator in the unry is ignorant of this law, Never, for many have already decided ich type of spray suppression lipment to use and are equipping ir fleets accordingly. But for those at oni the Aerodyne comment is aimed ind the many more who,

lerstandabh,.. have been putting off day when they have to spend around K) per axle, including labour charges, spray-suppression equipment which ny still fed will have little real effect -educing the spray nuisance — a tinder of their legal obligations is ely. Only two months remain before v powered vehicles in the UK will uire anti-spray equipment to the tish Standard BSAU 2(X).

kfter March 31 every motive vehicle r 12 tonnes design gross weight (the ign weight specified on the plate, not 'maximum gross weight in Great rainis the deciding one) will be aired to be fitted with approved iy suppression equipment unless the icle was manufactured before

:ober 1985.

.lew trailers and semi-trailers over 3.5 ties design gross weight have aired anti-spray equipment since last 'ii. By October I this year existing i and three-axle trailers and semilers will have to be suitably equipped ley were made between January 1975 April 1985 inclusive. The law allows rther 12 months' phasing in period trailers manufactured before 1975. October next year, therefore, all ers in the specified weight category be required to have spray pression equipment which meets the ish Standard.

low can an operator he sure he is ing equipment which meets that dard? Material which is not rmanently and legibly marked" with

BSAU 200/2 and " the name, trademark or other means of identification of the respmisible manufacturer" should not be considered because it will not be legal. However, it is worth noting that the BSAU 200/2 mark is put on by the manufacturer and strictly is no more di an "a clairn by the ntanufacturer that the product has been manufactured to the requirements of the standard". The BSI kitemark or safety mark is different. It will appear only on products which have been independently tested.

The manufacturer of the anti-spray material or device is required to supply full fitting instructions, but it is the operator's responsibility to ensure that the equipment is fitted to satisfy the dimensional limits specified in the standard. Copies of BS AU 200, Parts 1 and 2 are available from the British Standards Institution at Linford Wood, Milton Keynes, while copies of the relevant Statutory lostruntent, No 1543 The Motor Vehicles (Construction and ('se) (Amendment) (No6) Regulations 1984, are available front HMSO.

Several anti-spray equipment manufacturers have produced simple guides to the regulations, hut the most comprehensive yet easy to follow which we have seen is published by the Institute of Road Transport Engineers and costs a

WI 11( .1 l vehicles are exempt? Those which are already exempt in the C and U Regulations from the general requirement for mudguards will also be exempt from having to be fitted with anti-spray devices. These include vehicles for carrying round timber; agricultural and forestry vehicles; caravans; water carts; tire brigades' trailer pumps; trailers restricted to 19km/h (12 mph); broken-down vehicles; chassis on delivery for completion; and works trucks.

Many vehicles which are exempt From the sideguard regulations also are not required to have anti-spray equipment. These are agricultural trailers; engineering plant; tire engines; tippers; military vehicles; chassis being road tested or on delivery; refuse collectors and gulley emptiers; vehicles for abnormal length timber, beams or girders; temporarily imported foreign semi-trailers; and agricultural implements.

The following vehicles are also specifically exempt from the anti-spray regulations: four-wheel-drive vehicles (and multi-wheelers with a driven front and rear axle); vehicles with a ground clearance (at their centre( of more than 400mm; vehicles that cannot be driven above 48kmila (30 mph); concrete mixers; and vehicles en route to where spray suppression devices will be fitted.

At present the UK is the only EEC member state with an anti-spray law on the statute book although others, notably Belgium. have similar proposals under consideration. As reported in CM December 7 last year, the EEC Commission is keen to introduce a harmonised anti-spray standard, probably with some more stringent requirements regarding water deflection than currently we have. Many operators are now worried that this might result in their having to uprate existing equipment.

• by Tim Blakemore

comments powered by Disqus