alanci
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
When it comes to dynamic axle weighers, expert witness Stan Thomas is rt: the first to admit that the vast majority
of prosecutions are well founded—but 0 can fairness prevail when weighing
r,
long-wheelbase and STGO vehicles?
The accuracy of the dynamic weigher can rarely, if ever, be challenged—but the method and environment of its operation can. To understand the anomalies which can cause the mis-weighing of some long-wheelbase vehicles some explanation of the mechanics of the operation is needed. The vehicle has to be stopped six metres from the weighbeam, on a concrete apron which has to be regularly inspected and certified flat to exacting standards. And such is this requirement for accuracy that the apron has to be swept clear of loose stones before a weighing session starts.
Problems begin to arise when a vehicle is so long that it cannot be fully accommodated on the "certified flat" concrete apron, and some of its wheels have to remain on the approach road. When this happens the requirements arc that the vehicle should be on a "level approach", but there are no definitions of exactly how flat this approach has to be.
Weigh beam The main reference regarding the level nature of weighing sites is contained in the Department of Transport Code of Practice for Dynamic Weighers document GV 230, which requires, in Article 7a, that a vehicle must be on a "level approach", but only defines such standards of flatness for eight metres either side of the weigh beam— hardly sufficient for a long-wheelbase vehicle with a 20-metre axle spread.
To create extra confusion, Article 8a then states the standard of level on approach and exit to the concrete apron should have a finish tolerance of ± 3mm eight metres either side of the weigh beam—yet all concrete aprons are more than eight metres in length. So how does this define a "level approach" for vehicles too long to fit on the concrete apron?
A further reference on the level question is made in Appendix 4 para 1.1 of a guideline document issued by LACOTS (Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards), which says that further than eight metres from the weigh beam a level of ±6mm is an adequate value of flatness. However, this standard applies only to the concrete apron, and not the increased length of approach required to accommodate a long-wheelbase vehicle. Again, there is no definition where a vehicle cannot be accommodated on the concrete apron.
To make matters worse, the enforcement agencies sometimes display an incosistent attitude in court when it comes to the interpretation of what constitutes a "level approach". Often they will go to the extreme of engaging a surveyor to give evidence that the concrete apron met the criteria of the Code of Practice, but when faced with a situation where a vehicle was too long to fit on the concrete apron, they will emphatically insist that the Code of Practice has no legal significance, and therefore cannot be cited by the defence.
Two recent cases illustrate this conflict over what constitutes a level approach. The first concerns a lowloader weighed at the Anchor Inn layby near Exeter, where a front axle overload was recorded. IIowever, the length of the vehicle meant that the trailer bogie was not on the concrete apron as the weighing procedure started. As the weighing proceeded, the trailer wheels had to pass over a collapsed drain while they mounted the concrete apron, just as the front axle was being weighed. In court, and although the Trading Standards admitted under cross examination that the drain would upset the weighing, the magistrates still convicted, and it was only on appeal to the Crown Court that the conviction was quashed.
The second example relates to a prosecution brought when an 85-tonne lowloader was weighed at Ainley Top near Bradford. Here the approach was perfectly smooth, but not flat, so when weighing started the trailer bogie was 200mm (8in) lower than the weigh beam. Again the magistrates convicted, and again the conviction was overturned upon appeal— this time the Crown Court accepting the defence argument that the lowered attitude of the trailer bogie fell far short of the level approach" guidelines set out in the Code of Practice. What came out of this case, however, is that the judge went to pains to reiterate that the Code of Practice did not within itself create any legal definitions. This means that all cases have to be assessed upon their individual merits (or how much the operator can afford to speculate on a costly appeal depending upon your point of view).
Problem
And so the problem continues, with LACOTS and the DOT passing the buck back and forth and side-stepping any attempt to define what constitutes a "level approach" when weighing vehicles too long to fit on the concrete apron, and the Trading Standards still continuing to choose at will whether to accept or reject the Code of Practice in court.
In this respect, one particular aspect of the attitude sometimes displayed by the Trading Standards can be summarised by what occurred in the first example given above, when their officer admitted that the defence had a strong case, but argued that the TS had a reputation to uphold for never losing a case.
This attitude eventually cost the taxpayer nearly £20,000 in legal fees.
Until the Government or the Department of the Environment more clearly define the rules for what constitutes a "level approach" to dynamic weighers they could start by giving the Code of Practice legal status— operators will remain at the mercy of whatever individual interpretation the enforcement agencies and the courts wish to apply in each and every case, without any consistency of approach, legal definition, or level of sentencing.
Perhaps the authorities could address the problems of apron deflection when weighing vehicles. As it stands, the apron has only to be checked for movement using a 16-tonne GVW test vehicle, which begs the question as to whether it remains sufficiently accurate for prosecution purposes when weighing, for example. a 100-tonne vehicle. But that is another story.
by Stan Thomas