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 
Follow our lead...
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
There are good reasons for many of us to feel fed up at having to toe Europe's line in so many ways, but the majority of us comply without question. It therefore becomes somewhat galling when the situation is reversed, and Continental standards fall behind those in Britain.
Recently, a tanker crashed in our area and in so doing brought into focus a highly dangerous situation, which in this modern age should not exist. While all British tankers carrying dangerous loads have for sometime now had to carry identification which gives immediate recognition to experienced fireman and officials, the same safeguards do not apparently apply to all Continental vehicles.
Not only are our vehicles compelled to carry identification of dangerous substances carried; in addition Britain operates a code which informs the emergency services of chemicals carried, action to be taken, and whether or not there is a need for evacuation. I understand that the Association of Chief Fire Officers wants Continental lorry firms to apply the same system as they feel chemical identification is insufficient.
Apparently, the case of which I write involved a British vehicle which picked up a tanker from the Continent at an East coast port. The tank, containing a dangerous chemical, was unmarked and fireman had to spend precious time in tracing the Continental firm to ascertain what was aboard so that the proper action could be taken after the spillage.
This is one case where complete unanimity should link all parties in the EEC, preferably, an even wider field. It seems utter madness for safety regulations in this country to be ignored through an apparent loophole in our laws, which permit a British vehicle to pick up a
Continental tanker unit at a British port which is not properly labelled as to contents and methods of dealing with those contents in the event of a spillage or major crash.
Apart from the danger to the public, the good name of British operators is at risk in an event such as I have described. One hopes that the British government will lose no time in taking steps to ensure that this hazard is removed from our roads. NIGEL BREEZE, Southend.