Problems of the
Page 68
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIER and CARRIER
Some Rumours Regarding the Illegality of Overloading, and How they Arise. Efforts to Evade the Provisions of the New Act
IT is extraordinary how soon rumours can spread whenever any important change in conditions is pending. Now, of all the aspects of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, that which appears to cause most Perturbation is the prospect of the limit being set to the amount of overloading which is likely to be allowed, and it is in connection with this that rumours are flying.
That prospect of being compelled to stop overloading is likely to upset a great many hauliers. Most contracts are calculated on the basis of a definite, and in some cases a considerable, amount of regular overloading. , In the circumstances, cessation of overloading must involve such a considerable revision of rates as will stagger those who are accustomed to employ haulage contractors.
But it is of current rumours that I propose first to write. I have heard them In many places. More specifically I remember at an impromptu meeting of some sand and ballast hauliers at the demonstration of a new vehicle, there was a good deal of talk of lorries being stopped and their owners warned against carrying loads exceeding those for which the vehicles were constructed. On other occasions I have heard similar stories.
There was obviously some exaggeration or misunderstanding. Whatever may be the fault of authority, it is rarely that of moving too quickly. As The Commercial Motor has already explained, there are no regulations affecting overloading of the smaller vehicles, and none has been considered, so that it is most improbable that official action can have been taken.
' The other day, however, I had enlightenment. I received not only evidence of the serious effect of rumours, but a definite indication of the source of one of them. That indication was of a nature entirely to discount any possibility of official action which is of an unconstitutional nature having been taken.
a50
The story begins, as so many do these days, with a telephone call, from a haulage-contractor friend in the country. He, as part of his work, was engaged, in company with many other hauliers, in the conveyance of bricks. The company for which he worked, he said, had, at a moment's notice, made a rule that no vehicle entering its yards should leave while carrying an exces sive load. This particular haulier was using 2-ton lorries, and in conformity, as must be admitted, with current practice, had based his quotation for the work on the assumption that he would regularly carry 3 tons of bricks, say, 1,250 bricks per load.
This ukase by his principals for this particular contract meant that he would be able to carry only, say, 900 bricks, on which basis he wouldAbe working at a loss. He gathered that the rule;7ohad been made because some haulier, carting bricks`for this company, had been stopped on the road for carrying a load beyond the rated capacity of his vehicle. The brickmaking company, naturally wishing to avoid delay in the delivery of its goods, had put the rule referred to into force.
My haulier friend's first question was whether he was breaking the law by carrying 3 tons on a 2-tormer. The answer was " No "; that he was perfectly within his right, so long as the vehicle, and particularly its braking system, was safe when carrying that load.
He assured me that it was completely safe, and, further, knowing the man and his habits, I felt confident in my own mind that it would be.
Would I, therefore, he asked, communicate with the brickmaker and advise him that it was not illegal in carrying 3 tons upon a 2-ton lorry? He felt sure, he said, that my intercession would have the desired effect of persuading the brickmaking concern to rescind the new rule.
I therefore telephoned to the brickmaker. I stated the case on behalf of the haulier and met with a most courteous reception, but, withal, a firm refusal to withdraw the order until counsel's opinion had been taken concerning the risks of allowing vehicles to be overloaded. I was informed of "the cause of all the bother," as the Duke of Wellington said to Sam when he dropped his musket.
It appears that a six-wheeled lorry had been stopped upon the road and the driver was asked how many bricks there were on board; he said "10,000." That was quite enough for me, and it will be enough, too, I should imagine, for any reader who recalls that 1,000 bricks weigh approximately 24 tons, so that the net pay-load on this vehicle was 2424 tons. If the vehicle itself, as was likely, weighed 74 tons, there was a gross load of 30 tons, comparing with the maximum legal limit of 19 tons.
That is one source of the rumour that vehicles are being stopped on account 'of overloading. If all the sources be similar in character, I think hauliers may cease to trouble about the matter.
Going to the other extreme, there are hauliers who are reading something into the Act which is not there. These men are chiefly, if not entirely, occupied in the haulage of agricultural products. They have seen some reference to the fact that vehicles employed in agriculture are to be exempt from the licensing provisions. They believe that they are to continue to operate free from all restrictions.
They are certainly mistaken. In that particular, at any rate, the law is quite clear. It frees from restrictions those machines which, in the Finance Act, are classified as agricultural vehicles. They are "goods vehicles registered in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used on roads solely for that person for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies, and for no other purpose." That definition cannot possibly apply to a haulier's vehicle.
Similar in nature is the other optimistic type of haulier. Generally speaking, these are men of some substance, having several vehicles, who have equipped them with vaporizers to enabbitthem to use paraffin or some other oil as fuel. These hauliers are under the impression that they will be able to use these vehicles and yet pay only the duty imposed upon petrol-engined chassis.
This is another serious error. It can be shown to be so by reference to the terms of the Act. Those vehicles to which the lowest rate of duty applies are described as goods vehicles "which are not constructed or adapted to use as fuel any fuel other than light oils." That clearly rules out any vehicle, the engine of which has, as in the cases indicated, been " adapted " to use heavier oils and in that term may be included paraffin as well as fuel oils, creosotetand other alternatives to petrol.
It has even been suggested to me by one superoptimist amongst the hauliers of this latter category that, as the vehicles have been registered as having petrol engines, he will be quite safe to continue as at present without advising the revenue authorities of the adaptation. There is no doubt that any such procedure is a serious offence. tt needs only a realization that the underlying reason for the heavier tax on oil-engined vehicles was that users of this type of machine should not entirely evade the responsibilities of the petrol tax, to convince anyone who doubts the truth of the above statement that he is wrong. The mistake, of course, has arisen in a simple way as the outcome of somewhat loose references to this heavier tax as applying only to oil-engined vehicles. A. moment's study of the precise wording of the Act, as quoted above, is sufficient to dispel any misunderstanding. S.T.R.