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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
LEGAL COMMENTARY:
Page 156
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Jonathan Lawton
KEEP CHECKING WEIGHTS
• MY NEXT OBJECTIVE is a holiday well deserved, I might add and, as a parting gesture, I must leave readers with a little piece of bad news about weighing.
A judge at Stoke on Trent Crown Court is reported as having observed that, when a haulier carries regularly for a customer, there should be a regular practice of monitoring the weights of the loads.
The haulier in the particular case relied on the customers' computer calculation of weight which was, no doubt, based on the weight of the materials used to make the product. You might share the judge's view that that would not be enough but, in fact, the haulier's evidence was to the effect that spot-checks were carried out and that, on 20 separate occasions the customer's weights had been verified. That might cause you to ask: What, in the judge's view, is a regular practice?
Those hauliers who do carry regular loads for a customer against a belief that the weight is certain should learn something from this. You should check the weights at reasonable intervals. Do not, however, ask me what is "reasonable"? I have a feeling that, however frequent the checks may be, if there was an overload some courts would find that the checks were not at sufficiently frequent intervals.
The problem of weighing is clearly going to be with us for many years. Unfortunately, as I write, the signs are that checks will become more frequent and, as the cases increase in number, so do the demands on courts that are not always equipped to consider cases of this sort, and so the story continues .
By way of a postscript I must tell you that I have just had a case in which, on a tri-axle tractor the steering axle weighed 6,500kg or thereabouts, the second axle 2,750kg, and the third axle 9,700kg. These results did not, apparently, cause even a momentary flicker of interest in the minds of the people carrying out the weight check.
I am, with my firm, very much involved with the Heavy Transport Association. They, as you might imagine, have their own problems. Not only can they rarely, if ever, weigh a vehicle at the start of a journey, but, of course, an overload allows prosecutions to be brought for a whole string of offences if the exemption of the STGO is lost, a fact that is not lost on the prosecuting authorities. The sight of an abnormal load must bring a smile to the face of many a cruising police officer.
We had a new twist of fate so far as these large vehicles are concerned. The STGO has been varied quite substantially in recent times and we now have, as you will know, three categories of vehicle each with its own speed limits and axle loadings.
This notified category-three vehicle is stopped for escort by police officers who require that it proceed along the motorway at I2mph The law, as it now is, permits that vehicle to travel at 35mph. The company had, both lawfully and understandably, programmed the journey against that higher limit. When we queried the position we were told that senior police officers believed that, whatever the law might say, the tyres were not safe at speeds of 35 and that, therefore, there was real danger.
In fact the tyres on the vehicle were stated by the manufacturer, Michelin, to be safe for these axle loadings and speeds and the police were persuaded to change their decision, but only in the specific circumstances.
I have commented on the consultation process in previous articles. In this case that had been quite lengthy consultation involving most of the interested authorities and companies before the new categories were introduced. How can it be that a single police authority can declare UDI in this way?
All of this brings me to my next point which is raised by a recent article in Motor Transport, reporting that "police are to be given powers to prohibit vehicles where they pose an immediate risk".
The underlying principle must be applauded. The problems that I foresee arise out of the lack of knowledge about the systems of the modern heavy goods vehicle that is displayed by many police officers. Delay to a goods vehicle is always costly. Even if the courts don't pursue a policy of blind support for the police, who is going to pay for an unreasonable and unnecessary delay caused by ignorance on the part of an officer? In the past two months I have had cases in which police officers simply failed to understand braking systems; I am sure that many others have similar stories to tell.
There was, of course, a White Paper a consultation document. Will those who made any comment, please raise a hand? There was an excellent article about Wincanton Distribution Services in one of the recent trade papers. In it, the development director reviewed his company's policies against increasing environmental pressures that are affecting all hauliers. The bottom line of the message was that there is an increasing professionalism in all aspects of the company's operation.
...WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS Survival of large companies
It links neatly, however, with a recent EC directive on 'Admission to the Occupation of Road Haulage Operator in National and International Transport Operations". It's a long title but one that says it all. Written examinations leading to diplomas or degrees; fixed minimum levels of available capital and reserves; adequate status and competence all of these things will become stnct requirements. Does this not all point to the survival of large, highly professional haulage companies? Certainly I think so.
Finally, can I tell you that we are involved with an insurance scheme that bases the premium simply on the mileage travelled? The vehicle stands, whether in the yard or in a long traffic jam no premium. A vehicle is taken off the road, whether for repairs or not again, no premium. It is not novel in the sense that the policy has been available for some time, but it certainly has attractions.