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 
Long load conviction quashed
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Conviction of a Middlesbrough haulage company and one of its drivers of using a lorry with an overall length including load exceeding 60 feet, was quashed by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court last Friday.
The owners of the articulated lorry, A. Stevens and Co (Haulage) Ltd, of Newton Road, Great Ayton, Middlesbrough, and its driver, Mr John Evison Brown, of Hebron Road, Stokesley. Middlesbrough, were convicted by Worksop, Notts, magistrates on May 20. The company was fined £20, with £10 costs, and the driver £10.
Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Ashworth and Mr Justice Shaw, said the lorry was carrying a rigid steel girder at Blyth, Notts, on January 20. The measurement from the end of the girder to the front of the tradtor vehicle was 63ft 2in. The measurement of the load and trailer alone was 55ft 8in, Lord Parker said the question was which of these measurements must be considered when deciding whether an offence had been committed.
It was clear from Regulation 111 (4), of the 1969 Construction and Use Regulations that the Court should look at the overall length of the tractor and trailer.
But Regulation 110 (2) provided that where, as in the present case, part of the load bore upon the tractor, the tractor and trailer were to be taken in effect as two vehicles.
Lord Parker said that when he read the Regulations he was at first confused by their working, but he was now convinced that the effect of Regulation 110 (2) was to prevent the company and its driver from being guilty of an offence in the present case, and this was now conceded by the prosecution, who did not oppose the appeal.
The company and driver were awarded their costs.