Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sideguard bill worries operators

1st May 1982, Page 11
1st May 1982
Page 11
Page 11, 1st May 1982 — Sideguard bill worries operators
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?

Keywords :

OPERATORS are unhappy about several aspects of the proposed sideguard legislation, particulady the side impact requirements.

That was the outcome of a meeting of operators and manufacturers organised by the Freight Transport Association to discuss the implications of side-. guards.

The proposed requirement on side force is for the structure to be able to withstand an impact of 10 kW (about One, ton) over a flat area of 400 sq cm (61 sq in).

If such a structure is made in mild steel along the lines of a rear under-run bumper then, York predicts that it will add 240 kg (4.8 cwt) to the weight of a standard tandem axle flat.

BP estimates that it would need nine more vehicles to carry the same payload while Shell predicts that it will cost £700 per trailer per year.

The general conclusion of the meeting was that the FTA and its• members should assist the Department of Transport in coming up with a sensible load bearing requirementfor the sideguards.

"If we are going to have sideguards," said Terry Goldrick, director of engineering services at FTA, "then let's keep the legislation to an absolute minimum."

comments powered by Disqus