AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Pigeon-carrier's roof took flight

23rd February 1973
Page 28
Page 28, 23rd February 1973 — Pigeon-carrier's roof took flight
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?

• A pigeon-carrying trailer, which had a fibreglass roof designed with openings to allow the pigeons to breathe, lost its roof when travelling on the motorway and this landed in the fast lane of the opposite carriageway, Coleshill magistrates were told last week.

After the police, prosecuting, had agreed to drop a charge of using a trailer in a dangerous condition and amended the summons to having an insecure load, the defendants David Bratt and Son, road hauliers of Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire, pleaded guilty and were fined £10.

Evidence was given that on July 11, 1972, a tractive unit belonging to Bratt's and driven by one of its drivers, was pulling the trailer on the motorway, northbound. The trailer roof blew off and the 31ft by 8ft 3in. piece of fibreglass landed in the fast lane of the south-bound carriageway.

Mr W. Whitehead, defending, said this potentially dangerous situation was brought about by the roof coming away from the sides of the trailer; this belonged to the North West Staffordshire Federation of Homing Societies and was specially constructed for carrying pigeons over long distances by E. Simpson Ltd, Stokeon-Trent.

At the time of the accident it had completed 48 journeys and was on its way back from France. Bratt's had contracted to provide tractive units to pull the trailer and to look after it mechanically, seeing that brakes, tyres etc, were in good condition.

It appeared that when the trailer was constructed the roof, instead of being bolted or screwed on as one would anticipate, had been nailed on. Bratt's could not reasonably be held responsible for a structural defect, they had no reason to suspect the roof was working loose and if the fault lay anywhere, it was with the manufacturer.

The magistrates imposed a nominal fine.


comments powered by Disqus