AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Convicted for loose trailer underrun bar

13th February 1997
Page 17
Page 17, 13th February 1997 — Convicted for loose trailer underrun bar
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?

1 • George Hammond and one of its drivers, were convicted of using a trailer in a dangerous condition by West Mailing magistrates after one of the supports of an underrun guard fractured.

The court heard that an artic had been stopped by police after its offside underrun guard was seen to be moving up and down, Police Constable John Bridgetand said the rear upper support had fractured. He believed the fracture was long standing because it was rusting and was encrusted with dirt. In his view, the whole assembly had been likely to fall off.

Bridgetand told Jonathan Lawton, defending, that he considered that if someone were to drive into the side of the vehicle the underrun guard would not adequately perform its function.

lie agreed that photographs taken did not appear to show rust and dirt. One of Hammond's senior fitters, and a welder who had carried out repairs at the scene, believed there was no way that the assembly could have dropped off. They also said they thought the fracture was recent.

The driver„ Andrew Bravery, said he had been returning to the Sittingbourne depot having been away for two days, He had inspected the vehicle and trailer each day and had used the underrun guard as a ladder when loading and unloading. He had not noticed that anything was wrong. Lawton said it was unreal to suggest that it was dangerous when the only danger that could arise was from someone driving into the side of the vehicle.

The magistrates fined the company £200, with £125 costs, and Bravery £150.


comments powered by Disqus