AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sloping c h arges

11th April 1981, Page 19
11th April 1981
Page 19
Page 19, 11th April 1981 — Sloping c h arges
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?

:HARGES of axle overloading against Bolton Roadways Ltd and lne of its drivers were dismissed by Fentoi Magistrates after the ompany had pleaded that the method of we ghing the front axle of he vehicle concerned was unsatisfactory.

Prosecuting for the West Midferent result from that at the

3 n d Licensing Authority, Patrick AcKnight said the vehicle — a )AF artic — was stopped in a veighbridge roadside check and t Stoke-on-Trent the front axle ?eight was 350kg in excess of )e plated weight

Defending, John Backhouse rgued that the situation of the veighbridge, at an incinerator dant, and the method of veighing had produced inaccuacies. The vehicle was run foryard so that the front axle vheels were on the veighbridge.

In that position, the rear vheels of the trailer were some listance from the end of the veighbridge and at that point he road sloped towards the veigh bridge. The driver applied he handbrake which operated in the tractive unit, but had no ffect on the trailer wheels. The esult was that the trailer iressed forward on to the tracive unit and added weight to the ront axle.

The company subsequently veighed a similar 20-ton load rom the same customer at the ,ame weighbridge with a similar esult, this time there was a 100kg overload on the front axle. he vehicle was then taken to mother weighbridge where the jround leading to the bridge vas level, and the weight was hen found to be within )ermitted limits.

The second axle was also Neighed and again gave a dif Stoke weighbridge.

Company secretary for Bolton Roadways, J. Williams, said they had mor* than 20 similar OAF artics and the fifth-wheel couplings haell been set up to the specifications of the manufacturer. If the positioning had been wrong it would have affected all DAF vehicles, it was argued.

An on-site inspection by the parties involved revealed a slight slope at the weighbridge and it was decided therefore that a 20-ton load would put pressure on the tractive axle.

It is understood that Mr McKnight may request that in future the weighbridge concerned is not used for weighing by methods used in this case.


comments powered by Disqus