AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Detached trailer driver may appeal

28th April 1972, Page 28
28th April 1972
Page 28
Page 28, 28th April 1972 — Detached trailer driver may appeal
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?

• A Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, haulier G.E. Clayton Ltd, is considering whether he should appeal after conviction by Gateshead magistrates this week for using a vehicle with parts likely to cause danger.

Evidence was given for the police that at 5.45 am on November 30 1971 a Leyland artic belonging to the company and driven by Joseph Charlton of Bamber Walk. Gateshead, was involved in an accident at Hertford, Gateshead. The fully laden semi-trailer became detached as the vehicle made a left-hand turn and blocked the road completely.

Mr W. E. Sykes, a DoE vehicle examiner, said he inspected the vehicle and found the locking fork of the fifth-wheel coupling was defective. He issued an immediate prohibition notice.

Cross-examined by Mr T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, defending, Mr Sykes agreed that after the incident the trailer was unloaded and recoupled to the tractive unit and driven to the British Road Services Depot at Teme Valley where nothing could be found wrong with the coupling. Although the trailer was coupled up five times it could not be separated from the tractor.

Mr Joseph Charlton said he was a shunt driver and had picked up the vehicle at Cinderby in the North Riding after its 200-mile journey from Wisbech. Everything appeared normal until taking the downward turn in Gateshead.

Mr F. R. Loose, a director of the company, said his own staff could find nothing wrong with the coupling and the vehicle was cleared by an East Midland vehicle examiner. The only work done was the fitting of a new spring at Gateshead costing 28p which did not materially affect the locking device.

The vehicle's DoE test certificate and maintenance records were produced and Mr Campbell Wardlaw submitted there was clear evidence that the coupling was not defective. The summons alleged that it was: it was not for the court to solve mysteries and the charge should be dismissed.

After an adjournment the magistrates found the case proved and fined the company £20 with £5 costs, Driver Charlton was fined £5 but his licence was not endorsed.


comments powered by Disqus