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
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260 
Q As caravan transporting specialists we consider there is a "witch
Page 207
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
hunt" to stop outsize artics being used for split loads even in one direction.
We have been operating in this manner for seven years but now caravan manufacturers face an increase of 50 per cent in delivery charges if we have to send vehicles empty in one direction. What is the legal position?
AAs reported (CM. January 7 1966(a case
of this nature came before Uckfield magistrates' court when a caravan transporter was summoned to appear for using an articulated vehicle above the permitted length of 13 metres. When stopped the vehicle involved was carrying two caravans each measuring 20ft by 9ft 6in. as a return load on an artic exceeding 13 metres. He was charge with using a vehicle above the permitted length of 13 metres.
But the magistrates came to the conclusion that when the Minister of Transport concerned laid down the conditions of the Authorization of Special Types Order he recognized that while such special-type vehicles were in use there were times when they should be permitted to carry divisible or smaller loads and they accordingly dismissed the case.