AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Axle-weighing defence fails

8th November 1974
Page 22
Page 22, 8th November 1974 — Axle-weighing defence fails
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 DEFENCE claim that anaxle-weighing method used by Cheshire Trading Standards (Weights and Measures department's new name) had been proved inaccurate by test and did not justify a conviction for overloading, failed before Widnes magistrates last week.

Joseph H. Taylor and Son Ltd, Bootle, Liverpool, pleaded not guilty to exceeding the gross weight of a tractive unit by six per cent and by 18 per cent on its second axle.

Evidence was given for the prosecution that because of practical difficulties at the private weighbridge used, it was not possible to weigh all the axles individually. The length of the weighbridge made it impossible to weigh the tractor's second axle alone so the laden weight was taken, the weight of the second and third axles together and that of the third axle alone. From these it was possible to calculate both the gross weight of the tractor and that of its second axle.

The defendant's transport manager, Mr C. Begga, said a similar load was placed on the vehicle and tested at the Mersey Docks weighbridge and first exactly the same weights and calculations were taken and made. These were then checked by driving the unit across the weighbridge at right angles so that the second axle alone could be weighed. The result was that the actual weight was found to be 120 kilos less than the calculated weight.

The company was fined £25 and the driver £10.

Tags

People: C. Begga
Locations: Liverpool

comments powered by Disqus