AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

First noise offender fined £10

20th December 1968
Page 18
Page 18, 20th December 1968 — First noise offender fined £10
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?

• Haulage Contractor Arthur George Simmons, of 320 Sutton Common Rd., Sutton, Surrey, was one of the first to be prosecuted under the new excessive-noise laws. Simmons pleaded guilty by letter at Southend magistrates' court on Tuesday to allowing an excessively noisy vehicle to be used, and was fined £10 with £5 costs. The maximum penalty for first offence is a fine of £50.

A Commer lorry belonging to Simmons was stopped by police, using the noise meter for the first time, at London Road (A13) Leigh, on November 1.

The meter reading was 954 decibels, 34 over the permitted limit for this class of vehicle.

Prosecuting for the Ministry of Transport, Mr. John Hiscox explained that the driver was not being prosecuted because the Conamer lorry was a particularly noisy vehicle for which the manufacturers produced a conversion kit to reduce the amount of noise. It was clearly the duty of the owner, and not the driver, to buy this kit and fit it to his lorries.

When interviewed, Simmons said: "The driver told me he had been stopped and I had the fitter test the silencer to see if anything was wrong with it. He couldn't find anything. Commers are noisy and we have a workshop where we keep the vehicles up to scratch. They are checked daily."

The offence contravened the amended Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1966.

After the initial test, said Mr. Hiscox, the police then had to make a second sound measurement to ensure that the noise level of the vehicle was not less than 10 decibels louder than the ambient sound.

A private motorist was prosecuted for an offence of using an excessively noisy van (89 decibels) in Southend, at the same court, and was fined £10 with £5 costs.

Tags

Organisations: Ministry of Transport
Locations: Surrey

comments powered by Disqus