AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

New Rules—but Still Confusion

10th September 1965
Page 28
Page 28, 10th September 1965 — New Rules—but Still Confusion
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?

By the Technical Editor

ALTHOUGH clouded in a considerft able haze of legal jargon and extending to some 16 foolscap pages, the draft amendments to the Construction and Use Regulations mean relatively little. Baldly, what they do is to put vehicles registered after January 1, 1967 in the same position with regard to brakes and plating as the .1964 amendments did for vehicles operating at the new weights of more than 14 tons gross for four-wheelers and so on. They also specify for the first time the handbrake holding power on a gradient that is required and accept that a split braking system meets the requirement of a secondary system provided that the efficiency when one half is disconnected is adequate.

It is pointed out by the Ministry Jf Transport that these draft regulations are only a part of the plans for promoting road safety by improved regulations; they really amount to an interim measure until annual tests for heavy goods vehicles and an overall plating scheme which have already been announced are introduced.

It would appear logical to suppose that some move towards the plating of existing vehicles will be made before the end of next year. If not, a vehicle could be registered on December 1, 1966 and although designed as, say, a 7-tonner, could be operated at 14 tons gross, whereas the same vehicle registered the next day would be limited to the figure the manufacturer stamped on the plate.

Before long there is also going to be legislation requiring particular braking efficiency on vehicles built before January 1, 1967; the first stage will be an interim improvement, but eventually it appears that all vehicles on the road will have to have brakes to the same standard as set for new vehicles. On vehicles where the brakes cannot reach the set standard the Ministry implies quite coldly that they will have to be replaced by safer vehicles.

No one will deny that there is a need for complete legislation on braking requirements and the advantages to be obtained by the introduction of vehicle plating. But it is a pity that there are so many vague drafts and memoranda on the subjects floating about. This keeps the whole industry—both operating and manufacturing—in a state of not knowing where they are for going to). All that can be done is to get a bit of light from one document and a bit more from another to build up a picture of future requirements.

In the case of the present draft we have for the first time the requirement for a mechanical parking brake—it must hold the vehicle on a 1 in 6.25 gradient, or in other words have an efficiency of 16 per cent. But we still do not know how the 50 per cent service and 25 per cent secondary efficiencies are to be measured. Presumably they are not to be based on stopping distance as other legislation drafts referred to there having to be "no undue delay ". And in the present draft amendments the problem is skirted round by braking efficiency being defined as "the maximum braking force capable of being developed by the application of the brakes, expressed as a percentage of the weight of the vehicle including any person (not being fare paying or other travelling passengers) or load carried in the vehicle at that time ".

I do not understand why it has to he expressed this way, for surely if a certain efficiency is required then it must be related to the maximum gross weight the vehicle can be used at. This confirms the point I have heard many times that the Ministry is specifying efficiencies but not stipulating that these must be obtainable with a laden vehicle. No doubt we shall go on with everyone guessing at the final outcome and one manufacturer fitting braking systems quite different from the next.

It would appear from an engineering point of view that the licensing and roadfund taxation system could be the subject of changed legislation. There is far too much emphasis placed on keeping unladen weight of vehicles down to a minimum; much more than there would seem to be on the Continent, where vehicles are built to do a particular job regardless of unladen weight. Recently I saw a German 38 ton gross artic outfit where the three-axle tractive unit weighed about 7 tonS. and the tandem-axle semitrailer the same. I wonder how many, British operators would accept this from a British-made outfit?

Tags


comments powered by Disqus