1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
How Many Attendants for Mobile Craties?
Page 48
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN three firms were summoned at Nottingham Magistrates Court on Monday for allowing a heavy locomotive to be driven on the highway without two persons in attendance, the chairman of the bench, Mr. J. G. MeMeeking, said: "This case is so complicated legally and of such importance for the industry and to hirers of cranes that we propose to reserve judgment until May 11."
The companies involved were Bowmer and Kirkland (Plant) Ltd.; J. S. Burnett Ltd.; and Dennis Green and Harry Mover, summoned separately as partners in Speed Electrics. All pleaded not guilty.
Mr. T. R. B. Tiernay, prosecuting, said it was alleged that mobile cranes owned by the three firms had been driven on the road on different dates with only one person in attendance. They were classed as heavy locomotives and under Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, were obliged to carry a second persOn in addition to the driver when travelling on the road.
Representing two of the firms, Mr. P. F. Scott said that certain provisions put into effect by the Minister of Transport had the effect of permitting the use of a mobile crane on the road without an attendant accompanying the driver. He quoted from the Authorization of Special Types General Order, 1963, which, he suggested, made it clear that with mobile cranes less than 8 ft. wide and 60 ft. longthere was no longer any requirement for two persons to be in attendance. His clients' vehicles came within those dimensions.
Mr. Tiernay replied that the General Order did not go so far as to authorize for road use vehicles which did not comply with Road Traffic Act,