AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Pandoro discharged

15th October 1987
Page 18
Page 18, 15th October 1987 — Pandoro discharged
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?

• Leeds magistrates gave P&O subsidiary Pandoro and its driver Colin Bowman an absolute discharge after the company admitted using a vehicle with dangerous parts, following an incident when a semi-trailer became detached from one of its tractive units. The company was ordered to pay 210 prosecution costs.

The magistrates were told that the trailer became separated from a tractive unit being driven by Bowman about 81cm from the company's Leeds depot. Bowman said he was employed as a night driver, and the semi-trailer had been coupled to the tractive unit by a day man. When he came on duty he checked the coupling, which appeared to be secure, and what he thought was the locking handle on the fifth wheel coupling. He did not realise that the tractive unit had two locking handles as it had a sliding fifth wheel; it had been only the second time he had driven the vehicle concerned.

Pandoro fleet engineer, David Rimrner, said the company had the tractive unit on loan for evaluation purposes from the supplier and had experienced no problems while training drivers on the vehicle. Bowman had been asked to drive it as he was an experienced driver. He had driven the tractive unit the day before when the trailer had again been coupled by a day man without any problems. The fifth-wheel manufacturers were contacted and he and their engineer together stripped the fifth wheel. Everything appeared to be in order. The wedge that locked the jaws was some lthrun longer on a sample fifth wheel the engineer had brought with him for comparison, but the engineer did not think that would make any difference. The fifth wheel was reassembled with the original parts, and it appeared to be functioning correctly. The vehicle was put back into service.

Approximately 48 hours later in the company's yard it failed to couple properly again and the trailer again became detached. The manufacturer's engineer again took the fifth wheel to pieces and could find nothing wrong. Though insisting it was not necessary, their engineer ground the surfaces of the jaws and wedge before reassembling the fifth wheel.

The company then conducted further tests, said Rimmer, without incident, but the tractive unit was taken out of service and returned to the supplier. He had not heard of any further trouble with the vehicle. Defending, John Backhouse said everything had indicated that the coupling was securely locked and Bowman had no reasonable cause to suspect there was a fault. Pandoro had not been negligent and could not be said to have been culpable in any way.