Q I recently took delivery of an eight
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
wheeled rigid lorry classified as a 26ton-gross machine, plated at 26 tons and listed in your specifications published in the May 7 issue as having a gross weight rating of 58,240Ib. Yet I find inside the cab a notice to the effect that the vehicle cannot legally be used in Britain at more than 24 tons at present; until the regulations are changed I am limited to this, it seems. Having anticipated being able to operate at 26 tons I am very annoyed at this situation. How soon am 1 likely to be able to run at a higher weight?
AIf the vehicle in question is the one we
believe it to be, then it has an outeraxle spread of less than 23ft, and is therefore limited to a maximum gross of 24 tons. Eightwheelers with outer-axle spreads of at least 23ft are permitted to gross 26 tons, and those with a spread of at least 26ft are allowed to gross 28 tons.
Your vehicle is designed to run at 26 tons. but the general limits of the Construction and Use Regulations at present in force restrict it to 24 tons gvw because of the wheel spread, as outlined above. We have no firm information about likely dates for uprating of C and U limits. The manufacturing industry and the DoE have been involved in long consultations on the subject, and an announcement had been expected earlier this year, but no early statement now seems likely. The proposals which have been under discussion would have provided for higher gross weights for more compact rigid and articulated vehicles.
The specifications quoted in our May 7 issue indicate the features, including weights, of British vehicles as they are listed by the manufacturers (the specifications are published under the title British Commercial Vehicles for World Markets). They therefore show the design weights, and cannot take into account the many different national limits which may be superimposed on particular categories or configurations of vehicle. It is always necessary to be sure of national operating limits when specifying vehicles, to avoid the sort of dilemma which is described here.
Q1 understand that new vehicle weights
and dimensions to apply to all Common Market country vehicles have been suggested. Could you list these and show how they differ from the regulations applying to British vehicles?
AThe Commission of the European Economic Community (EEC) submitted proposals on this subject to the Council of Ministers in June and a report of these proposals was published in CM on July 2. The proposed EEC weights and dimensions are listed below with the present British maxima in brackets:
Axle weight: 11.5 tons (10 tons).
Gross weight: Two-axle rigid vehicles 18 tons (16 tons).
Multi-axle rigid vehicles: 25 tons (22 tons on three axles and 24-28 tons on four axles). Articulated vehicles: 42 tons (32 tons). Rigid vehicle and drawbar trailer combinations: 42 tons (32 tons).
Vehicle lengths Rigids: 12 metres (11 metres).
Artics: 15.50 metres (15 metres).
Vehicles and trailers: 18 metres 118 metres). Height limit: 4 metres (no limit).
Turning circles: Vehicles to be able to turn in a circle with an outer radius of 12 metres and an inner radius of 5.3 metres. (No limit). Power to weight ratio: Vehicle engines to be capable of producing 6 bhp per ton of gross vehicle weight and 8 bhp per ton for vehicles first used from 1978. (No limit).
anotice from the reports in CM of the
eliminating rounds for the LDoY competition that many competitors incurred high penalties and even lost places as a result of the Highway Code section of the tests. Why has there been this apparent sudden lack of knowledge of the Code and is it really essential that it should play such a prominent part in the competition?
AThe penalty rate has been so high this
year because a change in the competition required competitors to answer 20 Highway Code questions and 10 questions on drivers' legal responsibilities, 30 questions in all compared with the 10 questions asked in previous years. It appears that for many drivers these questions were beyond their general knowledge of the Code and their legal responsibilities, although the questions were such that all that was required was to make a selection from a choice of four answers which were listed.
No detailed analysis of the answers given has been made, but it appears that the legal responsibility questions presented greater difficulty in general than the Highway Code questions.
The reason for the change in the number of questions and therefore the elevation to greater importance of this aspect of the competition is tied in with the qualifications for hgv drivers" licences.
Drivers who have to take the hgv driving test are required to know this information and must be prepared to answer such questions if they hope to pass the test. Those drivers who obtained their hgv licences by qualification without taking the test have an equal responsibility to be aware of this information. A new edition of the Highway Code was published in 1968 containing a great deal of information not present in the previous edition and drivers who took their driving test in the days of the old Code may not have bothered to bring themselves up to date on the new version. If they have not done so they are failing in their responsibility as drivers because the Highway Code may rightly be described as the "'Bible" for drivers of all types of vehicle.
In the present climate of stringent regulations and ail-round increases in legal responsibilities the driver must accept his share particularly if all the talk of a new "professionalism" resulting from the reintroduction of the hgv driving licence is to become a recognizable attribute of lorry drivers. For those who aspire to the title of Lorry Driver of the Year such knowledge and understanding must be nothing less than second nature.
0. Many vehicles are now to be seen
on the road with rear reflective markers fitted in readiness for November this year when their fitment becomes a legal requirement. A number of points concerning the fitting of these markers come to mind from seeing these vehicles. First. I have seen vehicles of the pantechnicon or Luton van-type with the markers fitted high up above the rear doors near the number plate. Is this legal?
Some vehicles have been seen with two markers which are almost square in shape and obviously different from the general dimensions of the majority of markers in use. Are these legally permitted?
My third point concerns the long, narrow marker with the V in the middle. Which way up should the markers be fitted? With the V in the normal position or inverted?
AThe regulations specify a maximum and
minimum height for the rear reflective markers. The lower edge must be not less than 400mm (approximately 16in.) above the ground and the top edge not more than 1 /00min (approximately bft 8in.) above the ground whether the vehicle is laden or empty. Where two markers are used they must be at the same height from the ground.
So far as the different size of marker plate is concerned, these are permissible provided that the total area of each marker is at least 930 sq centimetres.
No specific instructions are laid down in regulations about whether the long diagonally striped marker should be fitted with the apex of the centre V at the top or at the bottom but in Schedule 1 to The Motor Vehicles (Rear Markings) Regulations 1970 diagrams of the markings are shown and the long marker, diagram 1, is shown with the apex of the V at the top. The diagram is part of the regulations and as such we would interpret the drawing as indicating the way in which it was intended that the marker should be fitted, in the absence of any wording to the contrary.