AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Weighbridge doubt leads to discharge

13th February 1997
Page 17
Page 17, 13th February 1997 — Weighbridge doubt leads to discharge
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?

Keywords : Bridges, Truck Scale, Axle

II A Lancashire haulier and one of his drivers convicted of running a vehicle with overloaded axles, have been given absolute discharges by Wigan magistrates.

The court heard that Henry I loughton, trading as H Houghton & Son, of Garstang, and driver George Waddington denied exceeding the permitted third and fourth compensating axles weights of a four-axled rigid tipper.

Martin Carter, prosecuting, said that the compensating axles were found to exceed their permitted weight of 19,000 kg by 1,470 kg (7.7%).

Trading standards officer Barry McGlyn said the weight check site had a gradient of 1.35% and tests had shown that at that site the average over-esti

mation of rear axle weights was 0.75%. McGlyn agreed with Michael Cunningham, defending, that the tests had been carried out by split weighing on a static plate weighbridge rather than an axle weigher. He accepted that there was no code of practice for the use of weigh pads.

Houghton said he had taken measurements at the site and found a fall of 1.5in in 7.5ft.

Cunningham said that the use of weigh pads for enforcement purposes did not have the bless ing of the Department of Transport. Wigan Trading Standards was seeking to prosecute people on the results of non. approved devices with no calibration certificate and on an uneven surface which, even on their own tests, showed inaccuracies.

The magistrates ordered Houghton to pay £150 costs,


comments powered by Disqus