AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A gy son, a tractor unit .LV1owner -driver of six months,

15th April 1993, Page 30
15th April 1993
Page 30
Page 30, 15th April 1993 — A gy son, a tractor unit .LV1owner -driver of six months,
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?

was at home last December nursing a minor bout of flu when 100 miles away his world was disappearing down the tubes through no fault of his own.

His relief driver picked up a newly imported semi-trailer at Portsmouth which was owned and operated by a French company. He made a visual inspection of the trailer and, with the confidence in the owners of the trailer, he set off for his destination. Ten miles up the road the police directed him to a test area where the tractor unit passed a thorough inspection but the trailer failed on excessive brake travel and substandard tread in one area of an inner tyre.

My son is now being charged with two offences before the magistrates of "using" an unroadworthy rig when he owned only the good half and was not driving any part of it, good or otherwise.

How do they define "using" it when he was 100 miles away? How does his position differ from that of the vehicle's owner, who was not driving it either but hasn't been charged even though it permitted a faulty trailer to be hauled.

How does it improve mad safety standards to find anyone guilty of offences over which they have no knowledge or control? How will road safety be improved in this respect without making the owners of unroadworthy trailers responsible?

Gordon Farley, Nausea, Bristol.

Following a recently correctly submitted 0licence application to vary an existing licence, although it shows as a new licence, I attracted two representations. One was late and not even showing my correct name from new local residents who dislike the traffic from my yard which has been in operation since the early 1960s. I am now told that I have to go to public inquiry in June, even though I explained on my GV79 that an increase in vehicles would not necessarily mean an increase in movements.

My correct newspaper advert was placed in 1992 so beware if you see any green shoots sprouting and wish to increase your 0-licence—ask your customers to start stockpiling their products and hope that the seeds do not grow, mature, seed, wither and die before the 0licence authority, which currently needs eight months to process an application, gets around to your case.

The job I wanted the vehicle for is now being done

by an unlicensed operator.

I believe there is currently too much concern to appease the house-flitting public who ultimately have very little concern for the long-term interests of the community The only "long-term" issue seems to be concluding an 0licence application!

While airing my feelings, why are 44-tonne lorry weights loaded in favour of rail transport and why should German road hauliers pay for rail improvements? Surely the railways should cover their own track costs? Name and address supplied.

Tags

People: Gordon Farley
Locations: Portsmouth, Bristol

comments powered by Disqus