1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Police burned on stove appeal
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A haulier has successfully appealed against a prohibltion notice imposed by police on one of its vehicles carrying hazardous chemicals. The prohibition was served because the driver had a camping gas stove with him in the cab.
PC Michael Watson of Cleveland Police told a Liverpool Employment Tribunal that in January he had inspected the vehicle concerned, which belonged to Winsford-based S Cooper & Sons and was driven by Alan Goodwin. In the cab he found a camping gas stove which, in his opinion, contravened the 1996 Carriage of Dangerous Goods By Road Regulations. This states that no person shall bring portable lighting apparatus in to a vehicle if such apparatus is capable of producing aflame or sparks.
He produced a page from the Cleveland Poke Transport of Dangerous Goods Training Manual, which stated that it was quite common for drivers to have portable cooking stoves in their cabs. The 1996 regulations had closed that loophole.
Cooper's compliance manager Les Jones argued that the prohibition notice had been wrongly imposed. He said that the driver carried the stove with him to warm drinks, soup and other food. The gas stove was being carried for personal use and the only mention in regulation 12, the regulation concerned, was of lighting apparatus that could cause a fire. Allowing the appeal, the Tribunal said that their unanimous decision was that the stove, which was the apparatus to which the prohibition order related, did not fall under Regulation 12.
However, a spokesman for Cleveland Police has subsequently told CM that the force still believes that regulation 12 applies, but in future they may make use of Regulation 23, which relates to anything that represents a hazard or serious risk to the load.