any questions
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Trailer trouble
I drive for a company running a fleet of 17tonne rigid vehicles which tow two-axled, 16.7-tonne drawbar trailers. Each vehicle and trailer carries a demountable body. Drivers are sometimes told to pull a partially or fully loaded trailer without any body on the motor vehicle. This leaves no spray control from the vehicle's rear wheels when the road is wet. Also, I believe the towing vehicle must be heavier than the trailer, but the transport manager and a director of the company say the present operation is all right.
What is your opinion?
Vehicles used for demountable bodywork must be fitted with spraysuppression equipment, whether such a body is carried or not. It could be dangerous to tow a fully laden trailer with an unladen motor vehicle.
The requirement for spray equipment to be fitted to goods vehicles is contained in Regulation 64 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. It applies to motor vehicles over 12 tonnes maximum gross weight made on or after 1 October 1985 and first used on or after 1 April 1986. Such a vehicle must have a spray containment device fitted in relation to all its wheels.
Various types of vehicles are exempt, including several types exempt from the sideguard requirements. One of these latter exemptions refers to a vehicle without bodywork and which is driven or towed (a) for a quality or safety check by its manufac
'it could be dangerous to tow a fully laden trailer with an unladen motor vehicle"
turer, dealer or distributor; (b) to a place where, by previous arrangement, bodywork is to be fitted or preparatory work for it is to be carried out; or (c) by previous arrangement, to the premises of a dealer in, or distributor of, such vehicles.
It may be that your employers feel that going to a place to pick up a demount able body comes within this exemption. But here it is considered that the terms "bodywork'' and "fitting" would not apply to a demountable body. A demount is not bodywork and it is carried rather than fitted. In other parts of the regulations a demount— along with a container—is termed a "receptacle".
Under Regulation 63 the vehicle must be fitted with wings or similar fittings to catch, as far as is practicable, mud or water thrown up by the rotation of the wheels. In the previous C&U Regulations wings were not required where "adequate protection is afforded by the body of the vehicle". But this provision was discontinued in 1986.
Properly fitted spray suppression equipment will, no doubt, fulfil the requirements of Regulation 63. But where it is not fitted such as in the circumstances you describe—there will be a contravention of both sets of regulations.
There is no statutory provision which prohibits an unladen motor vehicle pulling a heavier, laden trailer. But if the laden weight of the trailer is much greater than that of the drawing vehicle the combination could be considered unstable, particularly when braking and in poor weather conditions.
Also, Section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 now states that a person will be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving a vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. Section 2A(4) says that in determining the state of a vehicle, anything attached to or carried on it could be taken into account.
It would be advisable for you and the company to review the current practices.
Summons defect
I hold a trade licence
which I use for my business of delivering new goods vehicles to various parts of the country. A driver I employ parked a tractive unit in a road on a private estate for a night and left the trade plates on the vehicle. A policeman saw
the plates on the vehicle, said it was illegal to use them for parking overnight and I have now received a summons for using the vehicle on a road without an excise licence. What do you advise?
A The use of trade licences
is governed by the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994, Section 12(2). This states that the holder of a trade licence is not automatically entitled to keep any vehicle on a road if it is not being used.
Because the tractive unit was not being used while it was parked overnight it was being kept on the road and trade plates could not be used at that time.
But the summons clearly alleges you "used", on a public road, a mechanically propelled vehicle for which a vehicle licence was not in force, contrary to Section 29 of the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994. Section 29 says "if a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence". The summons should have alleged that you "kept" the vehicle on the road because, while it was parked overnight, it was not being "used". So the charge is incorrect.
It is not clear what you mean by a private estate. For the purposes of this Act, Section 62 defines a public road as "a road which is repairable at the public expense". If the road in question was privately maintained, there would be no offence.
Unlike other road traffic legislation, the question is not if the public have access to the road but who pays for its repair. If it is not repaired at public expense it is not subject to vehicle excise law.
Section 47(1) of the Act says proceedings under Section 29 cannot be instituted except by the Secretary of State (that is, the DVI.A) and no proceedings shall be instituted by a constable except with the approval of the Secretary of State. Sometimes police take out summonses without knowing they have to be authorised