AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No overload lines

17th January 1987
Page 18
Page 18, 17th January 1987 — No overload lines
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?

• A number of hauliers and drivers gained absolute discharges after Lichfield magistrates accepted that they were not to blame for overloading offences.

Onward Transport Company of Pontefract and driver Ian Worsfold admitted a 5,73% front axle overload on an ERF 32 tonne artic.

Stephen Kirkbright, defending the company, said it was almost impossible to achieve a front axle overload as the load had been two tonnes under the vehicle's capacity. An investigation had revealed that the vehicle was one of 12 identical ERF tractors operated by the company which had its fifth wheel couplings set 7.5cm too far forward — a mistake by the manufacturer which could not reasonably have been discovered by the company.

Onward Transport and its driver were given absolute discharges but ordered to pay 235 costs. There was a similar result when BRS (Northern) and driver John Hunt admitted a 4.3% train weight overload on a 32-tonne Mercedes artic.

Defending, Kirkbright said the vehicle concerned was based at Hull where the majority of work was for Geest North Sea Lines out of the docks. The vehicle concerned could carry 20,500kg and the consignment note stated that the load weighed 18,144kg. Geest later conceded that the weight was wrong by some three tonnes. BRS had relied on information Oven to it by a very large shipping line with whom it had dealt for over 20 years without any problem.

Middlesbrough haulier W G Thomas & Company and

driver John Craig admitted a second axle overload of 6.68% on an ERF artic carrying 12m steel angles.

William Coates, defending, maintained that the offence had arisen because of the configuration of the wheels of what was a hired trailer. An examination showed that the axle was 13-15cm further towards the rear than was usual on trailers of that type.

Managing director Maurice Dawson said it was a two-axle trailer loaded for a 32-tonne configuration. The trailer had been trunked down to Nottingham by a three-axled tractor where it was picked up by Craig's two-aided tractor which was plated at 38 tonnes. Craig could not have suspected a 56% overload as the axle concerned was plated at 13 tonnes by the manufacturers for special-types work.

The company and Craig were given absolute discharges but the Lichfield magistrates ordered them to pay £35 costs.


comments powered by Disqus