Containers—the Ministry Explains
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
L"OLLOWING representations by the 1 Traders Road Transport Association and The Commerc:al Motor ", the Ministry of Transport has clarified its reference to containers and restrictions on length and width embodied in the new proposals for vehicle weights and dimens7ons, summarized in this journal last week.
Confusion had arisen—and considerable concern, had been caused among some operators—because. para. 6 Of the Ministry's explanatory ercular letter, issued with the proposalS, stated that removable or hinged extensions, lowered tailboards and readily removable containers would not, under the new proposals, be allowed to extend either in length or width (8 ft. 24 in.) beyond the new maximum dimensions proposed.
Now the Ministry has made it clear that the restrictions will not affect• genuinely removable containers—though there may still be scope for legal interpretat:on of exactly what this means n practice.
The Ministry says: The object c,1 paragraph 6 is to remove all doubt that extensible projections both lengthways and sideways are to be considered as part of the vehicle and are therefore to be included in the measurernent of overall dimensions. We have in mind such items as rear elevator hoists, projections on car transporters, etc. In view of the recent court rulings about containers used for the transport of animals, which are bolted down and are to all intents arid purposes part of the vehicle, we should consider them also covered. But we have•no intention of applying this to loads and containers which are considered to be legitimate loads, i.e., loaded, placed on the vehicle for transport from one place to another and removed from he vehicle at the etid of the journey. These will still be permitted to be up to 9 ft. 6 in. wide in accordance with regulation 106 (ii) of the Construction and Use Regulations."
It is understood that a preamble to this effect will be included in the new Regulations When they are made, in an attempt to eliminate the problems of interpretation which have in the past led to High Court test cases.
The Traders Road
Transport Association said this week that it was happy to learn from the Ministry that there was no intention — as had seemed possible from the wording of the original letter--to place new restrictions on genuinely removable load containers. Meanwhile the T.R.T.A, has sent summanes of of the proposals to all its divisions for discussion, where time allows, and is fixing a
date for the vehicles committee to meet and discuss the matter nationally, probably before the end of this month. fly calling for comments by April 30, the Ministry has allowed little time for detailed consideration.
The Road Haulage Association already has a highways and vehicles committee meeting scheduled for April 14. and this will be mainly devoted to discussion et the new proposals. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is examining them and has welcomed the revised axle
spacing provisions. .
Although over a year has passed since the previous proposals were put forward, the Ministry's latest draft is still not with
out its puzzles. One of them is the apparently impossible-to-build four-axle artic to gross 32 tons, one of the items which John Moon comments noon in a
review on pages 46-47. H.B.C.