Nominal penalty after design weakness
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Weaknesses in the design of some braking systems of certain commercial vehicles were discussed this week at a Devizes hearing.
R. A. Uphill and Co Ltd, of Great Elm, Wiltshire, appeared before Mr J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, Western LA, under Section 69 following cases involving five convictions.
Mr Samuel-Gibbon said one case had involved a collision in which it had been alleged that there had been brake failure.
For the company, Mr M. McGregor Johnson said "that it was a matter of which came first" and added that there had been certain difficulties presented by the braking system of the type of vehicle concerned.
Mr M. G. Seviour, secretary and manager of R. A. Uphill, said the accident was not due to brake failure. The type of vehicle concerned used air over hydraulics, and if a driver used the brake excessively it could affect the co-efficient of the brake lining. His company had modified the braking system on the vehicle by fitting an additional cylinder directing fluid to each wheel with a separate handbrake. The vehicles concerned were no longer in use by the company. After listening to the technical discussion relating to the braking system, Mr Samuel-Gibbon said it was possible that the statement relating the brake failure had been made by someone with insufficient mechanical knowledge.
Other convictions had related to axle overloading and three had related to short-wheelbase tippers, said Mr Johnson. Because of difficulties presented by this type of vehicle they had now been discarded from the fleet.
The last conviction, he said, was somewhat unusual and had concerned a flat bed carrying concrete tubes. There had not been an overall overload. The driver had ensured the correct weight but had failed to obtain the axle load.
Mr Johnson said the concrete tubes of different sizes and shape made proper loading difficult.
The company was extremely conscious of its position and made every possible endeavour to. ensure full observance of the regulations. Drivers now understood that they would be dismissed if involved in more than one case of breach of the regulations.
In his decision Mr Samuel-Gibbon said: "I can accept what has been said to me. These cases of overloading were not done for profit of the company." At the same time he warned that companies could not shield behind drivers. Imposing a nominal penalty, he deleted one vehicle from the licence held by the company.