by Janus 6 The DTp has steadfastly refused both the
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RHA's pleas for a "due diligence" defence and the FTA's for a five per cent tolerance on axle weights where the gross and axle design weights are not exceeded. 3 new solutions overloading
is not the only publication to e paid attention recently to overloading problem. While report of the Round Table on subject in our April 2 issue ; being read, the AA ilication Drive was preparing Irticle for its May issue. !though, not surprisingly, the des in the two magazines e a different emphasis, the a? article is not a simple lorryhing exbrci se. At one point it nits that public spending cuts e closed so many public ghbridges that it is now more icult for trucks to check their ght. The multiple jeopardy of eral charges — on gross and overloads — arising from same incident is fairly orted. So is the recent
-ease in the maximum fine on h charge to £1,000. levertheless, despite all that :s before it, the article's final agraphs conclude that there ttle excuse for overloading I attributes Britain's (still) itively low weight limits to rernment concern at its valance.
lad such conclusions come at end of a traditional ggernaut-bashing" piece y might not matter much to fliers. But apart from its title The Heavy Mob" — the tone he article is reasonable, and stset some sort of record by once using the word ggernaut". Such apparent deration is likely to do more nage to the industry than the re common and obviously sed outpourings of ■ fessional lorry-haters. lthough the increases in the xima for both weights and Is have given overloading a ewed burst of topicality, re is nothing new about the iblem. Nor, alas, is there anything new about the solutions proposed by the RHA and FTA, and trotted out yet again at the CM Round Table. For well over ten years the DTp has steadfastly refused both the RHA's pleas for a "due diligence" defence, and the FTA's for a five per cent tolerance on axle weights where the gross and axle design weights are not exceeded. The Parliamentary scarring Ministers received over even the partial and half-hearted implementation of Armitage is not likely to make them any more receptive now.
Bill Mills of the FTA is reported to regard as "cynical" a suggestion that a legal five per cent tolerance would rapidly become the norm. On this point at least, there must be a lot of cynics around in road transport, as well as in Marsham Street. Those same cynics no doubt consider that the RHA's proposed "due diligence" defence would inevitably lead to even lower average fines than at present.
Prosecutions are not the only way in which operators suffer from overloading. Bill Mills rightly prefers the term "road wear" to "road damage", on the grounds that rozds are there to be used. But, where overloaded vehicles are concerned, "damage" seems more appropriate, and all road users suffer from it. In addition, the RHA's members suffer from the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by unscrupulous deliberate overloaders.
There is also a more positive side to this question, Operators, both own-account and hire-orreward, who take correct loading seriously can suffer losses caused by under-loading just to be on the safe side.
As the current down-licensing argument shows, overloading is not a problem for all hauliers. But for those who are at risk it is stating the obvious to say that the best way of dealing with it is to make it easier for operators to ascertain their vehicles' true weight and its distribution. The associations should be thinking along these lines, rather than devising fresh legal excuses.
In due course, the theoretically ideal solution — the on-vehicle weighing device — will no doubt be available. Both Foster and Armitage urged further development work, and presumably this is in progress. But there must be considerable doubt about the extent to which operators would buy any resulting perfected product. This doubt must limit the effort put into resolving the remaining technical problems.
The Government could easily give a fillip to development without spending any money. It could enact an enabling power which, when activated, would allow LAs to order operators with a bad overloading record to fit their vehicles with such devices. The implication of such a power would have to await the successful developments. But its mere enactment would encourage more energetic development.
In the meantime there is one other step which could be taken much more quickly. The DTp's 40-plus dynamic axle weighers are normally in use on only one day per week. Even on that one day, use is often confined to a relatively few hours.
The DTp is obviously aware of this under-use of equipment worth tens of thousands of pounds. It has therefore encouraged the development of self-weighing versions. The problem is that, because of the risk of vandalism, these facilities can only be provided at sites where there is constant surveillance. That is why the original facility was at Poole Harbour, and the second at a local authority depot at Gildersome. The next two will also be in ro/ro ports. At normal roadside sites the vulnerable console equipment is removed to safe custody after each check.
There seems no reason why, in areas where there is a particular need, DTp axle weighers should not be converted to self-weigh, and be manned during the hours of greatest need under arrangements made (and financed) by the RHA and FTA.
The manning need not be by skilled weighbridge operators, since the machine itself indicates if the conditions about speed and breaking have not been observed, and the weighing would not be for either commercial or enforcement purposes.
Obviously there would be financial and administrative problems to be sorted out. But a move of this nature would demonstrate the self-help which is so popular with the Government.
At the very least, the associations should approach the DTp to see whether they would be willing to consider such a scheme. And the trade unions, whose members also suffer from this problem, might be invited to join in the approach.
It might not work. There are no doubt all sorts of snags. But one thing is certain — it stands a better chance of success than either of the solutions put forward at CM's Round Table.