Left hand, right hand
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tilting at the needlessly complex wording of statutory documents is usually good for a sympathetic laugh, and the pastime is a favourite one for columnists and leader writers. But vagueness and ambiguity cease to be a laughing matter when they add unnecessary burdens to an already legally circumscribed industry like road transport; and this certainly appears to be the situation, in respect of the updating of pre 1968 commercial vehicle brakes for 1973, about which a CM staffman writes in this issue.
What hope is there of operators and managers being certain of their decisions when senior officials of the DoE can make quite different independent interpretations of the legal requirements which will take effect in 1973 in this instance regarding mechanically operated handbrakes? Leading engineers from two of Britain's largest brake-system manufacturers also gave our reporter diametrically opposed opinions on what the handbrake requirements would be, and he found similar differences of opinion among brake conversion specialists—to say nothing of operators themselves.
This really is not good enough. It now seems clear that many operators have spent a great deal of time and money in converting braking systems—or in some cases replacing vehicles to meet a standard which we are now assured will not be imposed. It can be argued with, some force that no money spent on improving brakes is ever wasted but this begs the main question. The fact is that vagueness has led operators to meet a legal standard which turns out to be illusory.
So where are we now? On the main point at issue the Department of the Environment has assured CM that where a pre--1968 -heavy motor carhas service and secondary brake systems with efficiencies of at least 50 per cent and 25 per cent respectively, then the vehicle's mechanically applied handbrake does not have to meet the 1 in 6.25 gradient holding standard. Just to reassure operators that no lastminute change of heart is likely, a memorandum from the DoE on the subject would be welcome. Better still would be the publication of definitive regulations.