Deteriorating relations with the authorities
Page 101
Page 102
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A tanker carrying a hazardous lond was stopped by a police officer some we ago. He took some time looking round the ehicle and then told the driver that he had r ason to believe that one of the fire extinguis rs did not work Yes, that is what I meant to say The driver replied that he could nake no comment. Only by setting it off coulll it be checked, and, if it did work, then the ehicle would be unable to proceed as it woifld lack one of the statutory requirements for such a load.
The police officer agreed that this w uld be the case . and then asked the drivei to set it off. It did work As a result the vehi le was immobilized until the officer had arran d for a replacement extinguisher to be brouglit to the vehicle at the company's expense. qne can only speculate as to what might have happened if there had been an incident w ile the replacement was on its way.
I am waiting to deal with the ca.." of an abnormal load which consisted of an earthmoving machine fitted with a blade. All the appropriate notices had been giv n. The vehicle, however, was stopped by police officer. He had a long look round aiid then decided to measure the 'width" of th blade that had been angled across the be of the trailer.
He alleges that the vehicle was too wde by, I think, some 65nrun or 23/4 inches. . . Five summonses have been issued agaiist the company on the grounds that the "ina curate" notice in relation to the width invalid tes the abnormal load exemptions. The fa t was cured by increasing the angle of the bla4e.
As my readers will know, I am incr asingly concerned by the deteriorating relationship between motorists in general, and the heavy goods road transport industry in parti ar, and the police and other authorities.
Unhappily, these two stories typify th sort of situation that causes that breakdown.
There have always been times whe I have been asked to advise what a driver ma or may not do when faced by authority that see to be behaving in a particularly stupid wa ; those occasions seem to be getting more 1 -quent. Inevitably the advice may well be see by the police or trading standards officer being obstructive, and that tends only t make matters worse. Nonetheless, given th apparent attitude of the courts, it seems to e that we should not go willingly to the slaugh r Some time ago, mainly, I think, in Li erpool, trading standards officers were appr aching vehicles stopped at traffic lights and r quiring the drivers to bring their vehicles to a nearby weighbridge. Not only was this practic extre-mely dangerous, it was clearly unlawful. This practice seems, I think, owing to the i tervention of the Road Haulage Association, to have stopped. Certainly I advised companie whose drivers had had that experience to ins ruct the drivers to ignore the request to g to be weighed. I continue to advise drivers ho are directed over a dynamic weighbridg to ask for a "second" weigh. I have no doubt that that advice is seen to be obstructive but, as I say, I have no doubt about the propriety of the giving of the advice.
Have I mentioned "second" weighing in an article before? One driver who asked for a 'second weigh was told that, if he insisted, "the heavier of the two weights will be used to prosecute". It seemed to me then, as it still does, that that one observation by a Department of Transport officer underlined all my anxieties about this method of weighing. A conflict between the two weights should cast doubt on the accuracy of the machine. A refusal to allow it to take place should affect the decision of the court.
Operators and drivers think, particularly faced by courts that are unimpressed by the assertion, that it is difficult to get an axle weighed on a busy plate weighbridge.
Perhaps police officers and others simply do not understand the financial implications of some of the things that they do. I would prefer to think that that is the reason Did the police officer who delayed the hazardous load have any idea of the capital cost of the vehicle or of the value of the time of a highly skilled and trained driver?
In passing, I wonder why he did not stay to test the next extinguisher, and the next, and so on I suspect that many of those concerned actually do know the effect of their actions.
The most constant example of this kind of procedural abuse is in the issue of Profiibition Notices. I doubt that anyone would argue that a vehicle which was dangerously overloaded should be allowed to proceed, Where do they find people who prevent the movement of a vehicle that may have an overload against the plated weight which is comfortably inside the design weight for that vehicle or axle, by using a prohibition that was, in my view at least, never intended for that purpose? When you ask the question in court the inevitable answer is that the prohibition policy is determined by "others". Those others remain unidentified and certainly remain out of my reach in terms of a chance to cross-examine them. The most disturbing aspect of the matter is that, taken case by case, there is so little that one can do.
Prohibition notices can be appealed, but, with the best will in the world, and I am not certain that "best will' would be encountered; the process is slow. In terms of commercial expediency, it is unreal to even think of allowing the vehicle to remain standing until the appeal can be determined.
There is an alternative course of action which is to sue the police or county authority for loss resulting from the unlawful use of the prohibition There are many cases, possibly the majority of cases, in which it is easy to demonstrate that there was no danger that could be reasonably apprehended by the officer issuing the prohibition.
Prohibitions are, as I have said, intended to be used where the continued use of that vehicle on a public road would be dangerous; I suspect we all know of cases in which vehicles with an overload of as little as 5% or 6% have been stopped. The position is even more frustrating where the prohibition is the result of a failure to understand the legislation, which I assure you, does happen.
But readers, before you rush to phone your solicitor or trade association, remember the cost. Do you have as much money to spend on this type of case as your local police or county authority? Do you think that to recover the cost of a fire extinguisher it is worth embarking on a court case that would be defended? Every Christmas when I stir the pudding 1 wish for a case in which the amount of the loss would allow me, with a clear conscience, to advise my client to sue.
Once again, Jam driven to urge you to look to your trade associations to review these pro blems on a regular basis. I fear that only by constant endeavour by all of us will any progress be made.
Even by my standards, this piece seems to be unduly gloomy. I write it as I prepare for a well deserved holiday and perhaps, when I return, all will seem better and brighter. As a parting thought, however, can anyone tell me if, under the new Special Type amendments, it will be an offence if the tachograph, which may or may not be accurate. shows that a vehicle briefly exceeded that speed which the manufacturer has indicated is appropriate for the weight that is being carried? Alternatively what happens if a vehicle notified as Category 2 comes up with a slight overload on one axle because of the misdescription by a customer of the weight of a machine?
by Jonathan Lawton