ehicle weighing ad overloading
Page 71
Page 72
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
review of problems now facing operators and users of commercial vehicles.
vehicle weighing and overloading problow facing the road transport industry )r urgent analysis and clarification. A $randum submitted this week by the it Transport Association to theMinistry ansport makes a strong plea for more nt interpretation of the regulations and ore extensive provision—on a 24-hour —of weighbridges. A full summary of najor document appears below.
til recently the responsibility of tors and users of commercial vehicles :lated mainly to the standard Construeand Use limits and not to individual le and axle weights. The introduction 3fing and plating with the consequent ig Standard List weights for over 0 individual models has radically ;ed the situation.
bject to two safeguards set out in S.26(4) e Road Safety Act 1967 an absolute 2e is caused whenever Ministry of Tort axle or gross plated weights are :ded. Shortly similar sanctions will also ibly relate to manufacturers' plates in compliance with Regulation 28 of !onstruction and Use Regulations.
ider S.25 (1) of the Road Safety Act the mum fine on summary conviction for or causing or permitting the use of a s vehicle in breach of any "description ;ight" has been increased from £50 to and the Transport Act 1968 provides convictions for overloading shall be -ids for refusal or revocation of an itor's licence and also a transport tger's licence.
etion 26 (4) of the Road Safety Act stips that there shall be a defence against an oading prosecution if it can be proved:
that at the time when the vehicle was being used on the road it was proceeding to a weighbridge which was the nearest available one to the place where the loading of the vehicle was completed for the purpose of being weighed, or was proceeding from a weighbridge after being weighed to the nearest point at which it was reasonably practicable to reduce the weight to the relevant limit without causing an obstruction on any road;
Or
I in a case where the limit of that weight was not exceeded by more than 5 per cent, that that limit was not exceeded at the time the loading of the vehicle was originally completed and that since that time no person has made any addition to the load.
In both these instances the onus of proof rests with the defendant and the Freight Transport Association advises that in their own interest operators should devise means of providing such proof.
The first safeguard is relatively straightforward although the words "nearest available" might cause interpretation difficulties. It has been held that the defence can only be applied when the defendant proves that he was en route to a weighbridge specifically for the purpose of being weighed. Using a weighbridge at the point of destination, even if it is the nearest one to the loading point apparently will not suffice. The second part of 5.26 (4) warrants further consideration. Obviously it covers the weight aggregation problem, e.g. the increase in weight on an absorbent load, water in tarpaulins, etc., but in the Association's view it extends to transit variations in axle loadings provided, of course, that the plated weights were not exceeded at the commencement of the journey and nothing has subsequently been added to the load.
Final interpretation must, however, be left to the courts. If this is a fair assumption though, the position would be further improved if the Ministry of Transport reverted to the 10 per cent allowance incorporated in the early drafts of the Bill. In the Association's view the reduction from 10 per cent to 5 percent has never been justified and a permitted 10 per cent tolerance on axle weights subject to the conditions written in to S.26 (4) would eliminate many of the industry's problems.
In December 1965 the Ministry wrote as follows to the Association:
"The Ministry having taken account of the views expressed by the various interested organizations, have in mind that the legislation on plating might include a provision on the following lines In proceedings for any offence of overloading it will be a good defence to prove either: (11 the vehicle was on the way to the nearest weighbridge, etc.
Or
(2) that at the time of loading the vehicle was within its weight limit and that no addition had been made to the load since then. (This defence will apply only where the weight limit was exceeded by less than 10 per cent)
It will be noted that (2) will cover both the case of the vehicle whose weight has in creased due to rain or snow and the vehicle on which off-loading had caused an increase on the load on one axle.
As the law now stands an absolute offence is committed unless the defendant can prove his entitlement to either of the two safeguards. But this apparently straightforward situation belies the complexities and takes no account of the problems facing the conscientious operators arising from the difficulties of ensuring correct weights at the point of loading and maintaining that situation during the journey.
Availability of weighbridges
The first part of S.26 (4) infers that there will be a nationwide network of weighbridges: otherwise the defence provided by Parliament is of little consequence. The Association understands that there are 2,700 public weighbridges in the UK but this total takes no account of availability nor location. Many weighbridges are only available for a limited number of hours during the day and it appears that the majority close at 4.30 p.m. or 5.00 p.m.
On November 14 1968 the Association together with the RHA, met the Local Authority Association who were asked to consider:
(1) that in all cities and towns there are made available a reasonable number of weighbridges, in order that commercial vehicles may be weighed: (2) that arrangements be made for one or two weighbridges to be available later in the day than the normal closing time: (3) that a standard charge be arranged for the simple weighing of a commercial vehicle: (4) that a standard form of weight ticket be used, which would give the axle weights and the gross weight: (5) that there is a substantial increase in the number of suitable weighbridges available for use by commercialvehicles; (6) that weighbridge platforms be such that they can weigh not only the vehicle up to 8ft 2-in. wide, but also vehicles with a length of up to 50ft, and that weighbridges should be capable of taking a load of up to a maximum of, say, 50 tons; (7) that consideration should be given to provision of coin operated weighbridges available for use for long periods each day.
While sympathetic the authorities offered no hope of improvement and referred the industry's representatives back to theMinistry of Transport. It was apparent that inter alia the authorities had reservations as to the possibilities of ensuring effective enforcement, and this appeared to be influencing their attitude towards the problem and their reluctance to invest the necessary finance. At least one chief inspector of weights and measures has, however, adopted a more dogmatic attitude, advising an FTA member that "the county council are under no obligation to provide weighing facilities for tradesmen".
As stated above, S.26 (4) clearly implies that there should be an adequate network of public weighing facilities to enable operators to comply with the law and to keep the scope of the safeguards within reasonable bounds. In thc FTA's view there is urgent need for action along the lines suggested and it urges the Ministry of Transport to help to finance the required facilities under the powers conferred by S.23 of the Road SafetyAct 1967.
The extension of public weighbridge facilities must parallel the development of portable and small permanent weighing devices and weighing instrumentation embodied in the vehicle itself.
Some progress has been made in the first two fields recently but there is scope for further development; the introduction of vehicle instrumentation warrants particular attention. This might be said to be the key to many of the problems. Work in this field has been limited and fragmented but the matter merits urgent attention and coordination. The topic has been discussed with individual vehicle manufacturers during the current series of FTA/manufacturer liaison meetings but it is recognized that this does not concern vehicle manufacturers solely. Accordingly the Ministry of Transport, possibly in conjunction with the NRDC, should assume responsibility for the coordination and progression of this work.
Off-loading excess weights
So far this memorandum has been concerned with vehicle weighing and the Act and Regulations are based on the assumption that weights will be checked and any excesses off-loaded as soon as practicable.
Whilst admirable in theory the off-loading of surplus weights gives rise to many problems particularly apparent in the case of dock collections and loading ex-ship. Weighing facilities are rarely available "along-side" and vehicles have to go to weighbridges in other parts of the docks and often to outside premises. The dock labour situation generally prevents drivers making their own adjustments and for bulky and heavy loads this is clearly impracticable anyway. Even if the driver rejoins the .ship's queue it is doubtful whether the dock labour force would be interested or prepared to help.
The memorandum urges docks authorities to make every effort to ease the situation; the difficulties facing road transport interests should also be recognized by all enforcement officers. It is understood that the Ministry of Transport is already discussing these difficulties with the docks authorities and a joint Ministry/docks/industry investigation now appears to be justified.
A meeting between the Ministry of Transport, Home Office, local authorities and Magistrates Association is urged by the FTA.
The collection of containers, particularly those entering the country under TIR Customs seal, presents special difficulty. The collector cannot know the exact weight and its distribution within the container prior to weighing. The lorry driver faces a direct conflict between the Customs rules which prohibit the opening of the container and the need for weight re-distribution. Clearly if it is a significant excess a replacement vehicle must be summoned but this can only be justified if the intended movement is likely to cause danger. This problem is notrestricted to dock work; similar difficulties arise in other instances, e.g., collection of bulk minerals, grain, round timber.
Much depends on the courts' eventual interpretation of the relevant words in S.26 (4) for might it not be held that:
"the nearest point at which it was practicable to reduce the weight''
can only be a place where off-loading facilities are conveniently and freely available?
Variations in axle loads
Even when the weighing and off-loading problems have been overcome many operators are still faced with the difficulties of ensuring compliance with individual axle weights during transit, particularly with diminishing loads.
Whilst this problem can be alleviated by the use of higher rated axles and by the re-siting of loads this is not always the case, and during the life span of present-generation vehicles these difficulties will be pronounced. Certainly the high cost of major vehicle conversions is not justified by the virtually negligible consequences of a slight axle overload yet down rating to keep within the law throughout the day can adversely effect productivity. In one case recently reported, 16-ton vehicles were only being operated at 15 ton cwt—resulting in a 7 per cent decrease in productivity.
So far the emphasis has been on the position of the vehicle operator but the introduction of plating and the consequential problem bear also upon the user or hirer of the vehicle.
As with all the Construction and Use Regulations the liability for legal compliance rests with the user of the vehicle or the person who causes or permits the vehicle to be used. A liability also attaches to anyone who aids and abets the commission of an offence.
In theory, therefore, the hirer of the vehicle can carry the same responsibility as the operator, but successive legal interpretations of "using", "causing" and "permitting" have shown that they cannot normally attach to a third party unless he knows of or connives in the offence. The user's position appears to. have been further strengthened by Windle v Dunning and Son Ltd. 1968(1968 1:W.L.R.552).
While "causing", "using" or "permitting" are therefore theoretical possibilities most of the cases for overloading against companies which hire transport have been for aiding and abetting. National Coal Board v Gamble as modified by the more recent Henshall Quarries Ltd. case provides the necessary precedents and proves that the vehicle hirer can be liable unless he takes all reasonable steps to prevent the offence. This being so the Association has always advised members to take reasonable precautions, erect warning notices at the weighbridge and factory gates, instruct attendants never to issue a weight ticket for an overloaded vehicle and to be seen to be enforcing the rules at the pain of dismissal.
While the introduction of plating does not in itself affect the vehicle hirer's legal position it adds considerable complications and will exacerbate an already difficult situation.
In the past the safeguards mentioned above linked with the weighbridge attendant's or loader's knowledge of the main vehicle groups and the weight limits thereon have provided a reasonably practicable check system. Now, however, no two vehicles are alike and the company loading the vehicle and the weighbridge attendant in particular, have no means of knowing the permitted weights without reference to the vehicle's plate. As the majority of these will be in the cab the attendant will have to leave his office to inspect the plate unless he "takes a chance" and relies on the driver's word. The hirer's position is presumably immediately undermined if the latter is the case and certainly such a practice cannot be recommended.
Clearly the situation points to the use of additional weight markings on the side of vehicles as authorised by Regulation 120 of the amended C. and U. Regulations. In addition companies ought to consider whether they should ask for such markings on vehicles making collections from their premises.
Enforcement
Above all there is a need for sensible and realistic enforcement of the weight regulations. While the Association in no way condones excessive over-loading it does not accept that marginal excesses on individual axles in particular, can in themselves, cause danger and challenges the Ministry of Transport to prove to the contrary.