AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

topic

22nd October 1971
Page 47
Page 47, 22nd October 1971 — topic
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?

Opinion of weight

AMENITY and safety are two emotive themes on which the opponents of road transport can ring the changes indefinitely. To judge from recent statements, the Department of the Environment is concentrating at the moment on the first theme. There are plans for reducing noise and pollution, for keeping lorries off the streets especially at night, and even for curbing the efforts of foreigners to ruin England's green and pleasant land.

Reacting against the official trend, the critics have turned their attention to safety, and particularly to insecure loading and overloading. There are advantages to be gained from an attack on this front.

With noise and with pollution generally there is ample room for argument. To most people the decibel is no more a reality than Tinkerbell. Their reaction to noise is subjective. It is sometimes the general roar of traffic which becomes intolerable, although no individual vehicle is to blame. The measuring instruments are notoriously fickle and the readings can vary substantially according to the location of the test.

The concept of pollution is equally elusive, As with noise, its extent varies on the same vehicle. The Road Research Laboratory, in its annual report published last week, has no more definite conclusion to reach than that air pollution from traffic is not at present a serious hazard to health in the UK. It has previously been established that emissions from petrol.driven vehicles are considerably more toxic than those from diesel-engined vehicles.

According to the report, present levels of noise from road traffic also have not been shown as a significant hazard to health. Some amelioration of the general noise environment could be achieved, however, says the report, if heavy commercial vehicles were to use only main roads excekt where access is essential, "at the expense of even lower standards on these routes".

The caution which is prudent in approaching the subjects of noise and pollution does not apply with insecure or too heavy loads. If a lorry sheds its load, there can be no doubt that it was not secure. The fault may have been so well hidden that the operator or driver could not be blamed for failing to notice it, or the stress may have been intolerable. Whatever the explanation, the effect is plain.

Overloading can be diagnosed with even greater precision. Some operators have complained of prosecutions for an excess of only a few hundredweight above the legal maximum. The law should not concern itself with trifles, they say. They have suggested that there should be a 5 per cent or even a 10 per cent tolerance. The authorities naturally reply that a concession of this kind tends in practice to become the norm; but there are indications that less notice is now being taken of minor infringements.

Tacit acceptance of an occasional illegality shows an appreciation of what can happen. Unless a vehicle actually stands on a weighbridge during loading, or is equipped with load-sensing devices, the driver cannot easily estimate exactly what he is taking on. The loader would seek to put as much on the vehicle as he can and certainly not to stop anywhere short of the permissible limit.

Powerful pressures are exerted. Indirect evidence of them is provided both by the substantial penalties for overloading and by the need which the Road Haulage Association has felt to issue a warning leaflet which members can circulate to their customers.

Whatever unofficial tolerance may be given is an indication that the operator has no means of concealing his offence, however insignificant; whereas tolerance where noise or pollution is concerned would signify the operator's right to the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, in spite of the legal pinpointing which a weighbridge makes possible, and in spite of the heavy penalties, overloading is one of the most frequent offences.

Official statistics are not the only sign. Shortage of examining staff and of weighbridges makes large-scale evasion probable if not certain. Freedom of lighter vehicles from licensing has tempted operators to make more use of them and to send them sometimes on long journeys with loads far above their safe capacity. In general, unless a lorry is visibly affected as a result of gross overloading, there is no indication of anything unusual as it travels on the road.

With overloading as rife as it well may be, it may seem strange that so much fuss has been made about proposals to permit an increase in the maximum weight for vehicles built to carry that increase. At this point the subject once more comes back within the field bf amenity and the supposed deleterious effect of heavy vehicles on buildings and on roads.

On this point also the RRL report does not provide much help for the shriller champions of the environment. The hope is held out in the report that weight increases "which are justified on economic grounds" can be accompanied by technical measures to prevent damage to roads or to the environment.

by Janus


comments powered by Disqus