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 
Hazards in Livestock Haulage
Page 88
Page 91
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By a Special Correspondent
IN the haulage of livestock the good driver is one who combines wehicle-handling ability with a wide knowledge of animals. The poor driver is a danger to other road users as well as himself, and he may well be the type who is indifferent to the welfare of the animals in his charge.
A good driver (who is employed by a conscientious operator) may, in some cases, be entrusted with a fully laden vehicle, the features of which reduce its stability to an extent that would be unacceptable if the vehicle were in the hands of a less-skilled driver or one who had limited experience of livestock traffic.
Regulations applying to the construction of livestock vehicles do not limit the centre of gravity of the load, or specify that partitions should be used to prevent bunching of the animals and excessive free movement. In the case of container bodies the regulations do not lay down the form of mounting and location, and no restriction is imposed on the flexibility of body structures.
is More Control Needed?
Should regulations be introduced to ensure that body structures conform with certain standards in the interests of road safety and animal welfare? A critical survey of the problem which I have made indicates that most longdistance livestock operators run vehicles that are safe to Jrive by normal standards or are safe in the hands of their particular drivers. Is the percentage of " dangerous " vehicles and drivers sufficient to justify further control of body features?
It is, in fact, small, but many operators of high repute have had to reduce overall running costs to meet r26 intense competition from rate-cutting competitors. This may well undermine the conscientious operator's regard for safety, and the introduction of regulations based on accurate assessment of all the factors could, in the long run, react to his benefit.
Measures being taken by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals regarding the use of opentop three-deck vehicles have yet to be announced. The recommendations of the Society will, it is assumed, specifically relate to the travelling conditions of the animals on the top deck, and their comments will probably receive widespread publicity, particularly if they are prejudicial to a large number of operators.
This could create a general bias against livestock hauliers that would be unfair to the majority. Pending or following this development, an impartial investigation of bodywork features tending to reduce safety on the road and to cause suffering to animals would help to eliminate any unfounded criticism of normal practices.
Conclusions derived from my survey are summarized in list form without regard to order or importance.
(1) When sheep are carried on the open top deck of a three-decker, any suffering is usually caused by the neglect of the operator or driver to apply obvious safeguards specified in the regulations. Such neglect is relatively rare.
Problems associated with the welfare of pigs in hot weather appear to be
far more acute. hi some Weather conditions sheep and pigs on an open deck are better off than if they were carried on a lower deck. Transit fever is fairly common whencattle are moved long distances. The most corn
mon type of insurance claim relates to animals injured when the vehicle is being loaded and unloaded.
(2) A fully laden three-decker based on a four-wheeled chassis may be unstable on the road unless the platform height has been reduced or the vehicle is driven with special care. Adequate partitioning is essential, particularly on the top deck (of twodeck and three-deck vehicles) to obviate movement of the load with body sway, as well as suffocation.
The centre of gravity of the load, the ratio of laden to unladen weight and the effective track are allimportant considerations. Undoubtedly some maximum-load four-wheeled chassis are better suited to carry threedeck bodies than others.
Safe Three-deckers
It is generally considered that sixand eight-wheelers provide an ample safety margin, preference frequently being given to the twin-steer chassis in the case of the 'six-wheeler, on account of the relatively high frontaxle loading associated with livestock transport. An assurance assessor has described a laden three-decker without partitions as a lethal weapon, (3) A tilt test should be made of typical three-deck vehicles carrying weights to decide the distribution of the rated load according to floor space, and a second test should be performed after the load of the two lower decks has been cut by 20%.
Data derived from these tests would be used as a basis for regulations governing the maximum allowable tilt of new vehicles. A concession could be made to the users of older vehicles to the extent of permitting limited topdeck loading. This could be restricted :ducing the overall length of the • The provision of adequate Lions should be included in the ations.
Structural rigidity can be an allTtant safety factor in the operaof all three-deck vehicles and two-deckers.
:cording to an authoritative ion on this aspect of safety, a ively simple test could be oyed to assess rigidity in terms isplacement by a transverse force 1 to maximum centrifugal force the vehicle is travelling on a e. In practice, a body may lose ity over a period; Ministry of isport examiners could be given authority to make the necessary of older vehicles.
Difficult to Tighten ) Means for securing container. es to the vehicle platform are uently inadequate, or the clamps ;o difficult to tighten that operators to neglect periodic adjustment. ) Experts disagree on the most tble form of loading-ramp surface all kinds of weather, possibly use conscientious and skilful fers can prevent panic loading. is noteworthy that the authorities lanbury Market (a private-enterr. company) have banned some rers because of their callousness in dling animals.
) Exhaust fumes can cause ecessary discomfort or suffering to nals, particularly when a queue vehicles is waiting to enter a .ket in still air on a hot day. The nful effects could be avoided by nging the position of the outlet.
Suspended Load he instability of some three-deckers on lighter chassis may be corn:id with the effect on the handling he vehicle of a suspended load in igh van. In both cases movement the load can increase the hazard rted by a high centre of gravity, it would appear reasonable that safety problems connected with 3 loading should be considered ether.
uch a policy could, however, delay ..stigation of livestock transport, ch is the more necessary because the large number of cattle trucks the road and of the humane con!rations involved. If an impartial estigation of the factors enumerated ed to prove that some vehicles -e hazardous to drive on account the form of body construction ployed, it would undoubtedly eal Measures that could be taken improve the layout of interior ings and so on.