AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

From the by Graham Montgomerie fr mim itlE74 7ii_V c om fr

25th June 1983, Page 66
25th June 1983
Page 66
Page 67
Page 66, 25th June 1983 — From the by Graham Montgomerie fr mim itlE74 7ii_V c om fr
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?

VEHICLE RECOVERY by road and rail was the subject of a recent conference sponsored by the Engineering Manufacturing Industries Division of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and co-sponsored by a number of groups including the Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators (Avro.

Held at Harrogate, the conference was intended to run in parallel with the Avro exhibition reported in CM June 11 and the speakers included representatives from manufacturers and operators.

Defects in trade plate legis lation were highlighted by John Wells of the Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators. He claimed that the use of transferable taxed plates for the occasional movement of unlicensed vehicles has been abused.

Mr Wells mentioned that trade plate regulations are so loosely worded that, despite several police prosecutions for alleged abuse, the courts have held that "a runabout van with a jack in the back" comes within the definition of a recovery vehicle.

It has also been held that an articulated car transporter with a winch fitted behind the cab and carrying a load of old cars comes within the definition of a recovery vehicle, can legally use trade plates and can escape all the provisions of operator's licensing, plating and testing as well as the annual inspection.

One way of overcoming most of these problems suggested Mr Wells would be for the Government to issue a completely new type of trade plate specifically for recovery vehicles. The legislation covering the issue of such a trade plate will define the type of vehicle and the uses to which it could be put. Mr Wells said that a recovery trade plate could cover both licensing and taxation of recovery vehicles and be easily identifiable, thus preventing many of the abuses prevalent with the present trade plates.

Mr Wells also traced the origins of Avro, going back to a Commercial Motor-organised conference at Wembley in 1977. He explained that the association consists of 12 regions which elect their own chairman and secretary and a regional council member who would sit on the national executive council.

Mr Wells described how the membership is divided into four basic categories according to the type of work the operator is capable of handling: Category A: all types of recovery of vehicles from cars to 32 tons gross weight commercials, both on and off road. Category B: commercial vehicles only up to 32 tons gross, routine recovery and road-side operation.

Category C: commercial vehicles up to 16 tons gross. Category D: cars and light commercials up to 3.5 tons gross, on and off road with local and national recovery facilities.

Mr Wells stressed that membership of the association is not gained as of right. All potential members are visited by a twoman team whose job is to inspect the premises and equipment. Membership is now about 800 said Mr Wells, with 100 new applications being processed every year. "It does need more members" said Mr Wells "but quality is more important than quantity."

Recovery vehicle legislation and standards not only for the recovery chassis but also for the lifting equipment were covered by John Hancock of Crane Fruehauf.

Referring to the lifting equipment which is available, Mr Hancock said that the manner in which it is fitted to the vehicle is critical. He maintained that it is not generally appreciated that vehicle manufacturers define a minimum front-axle weight in order to ensure that steering and braking efficiency are not impaired. He stressed that this limi tation often reduces the safe lift and tow figure that would otherwise be declared by the recovery equipment installer.

In Mr Hancock's view there is a need to establish a standard minimum front-axle weight expressed as a proportion of the front-axle plated weight since there is no common accepted standard currently in use. He recommended that this figure should be in the order of 25 to 30 per cent.

It is important, stressed Mr Hancock, that recovery operators and recovery vehicles are actually, as well as legally, capable of performing the task they are required to perform. He emphasised that operators should be properly trained and that their vehicles and equipment should be regularly checked to ensure its condition and safety.

Summing up, Mr Hancock proposed that a study group should be set up. He recommended that expert advice should be sought from the police, the Association of Insurance Engineers, the Ministry of Transport and the Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators as each of these bodies has a vested interest in improving the current situation with regard to vehicle recovery.

Mr Hancock said that the broad objective of the study group should be to review whether all recovery vehicles should be checked and tested to a recognised standard. The present situation is that recovery vehicles do not have to be tested or plated but they do have to comply with the Construction and Use Regulations as well as with the Health and Safety at Work Act.

As far as the study group was concerned Mr Hancock suggested that the following items ought to be considered: (a) All recovery vehicles to be MoT tested every 12 months.

(b) The test should include the approval of test certificates showing the maximum safe working load of all recovery equipment as well as the maximum vertical lift at a radius equivalent to that at which a suspended tow is achieved. This would be limited to keep within the chassis manufacturers plated rear axle weight and their minimum front axle weight.

(c) Data should be produced by the company issuing the test certificates showing how the SWL figures are arrived at.

(d) The kerb weight and the maximum design gross train weights of the recovery vehicle chassis should be checked and clearly displayed to determine the maximum weight of vehicle that can be towed.

(e) Health and Safety Act and winch cable standards must be adhered to.

Mr Hancock suggested that the maximum gtw figures should be shown assuming the casualty vehicles brakes to be operated by the recovery vehicle and that a much lower speed limit should apply where heavy vehicles are towed without brakes.

Bill Jackson of Wreckers International was scathing in his comments on the development of recovery equipment. He claimed that, when one considers the development of radio, vehicles, micro-chips and television, very little has happened to recovery equipment, suggesting that this is parallel to a Model T Ford still being used as a London taxi.

In Mr Jackson's opinion the recovery equipment industry worldwide is undergoing "the greatest recession ever known" and he suggested that eventually the market here and elsewhere must divide into two for economic reasons. • He envisaged a chain of operators, perhaps 200 in all, spread throughout the UK, who own and, in the main, drive themselves, the most sophisticated recovery vehicles capable of handling any emergency.

Mr Jackson suggested that they would be divided into two categories. The first would attend all accidents either at the request of the police or a direct call thus cutting out what Mr Jackson referred to as "the present ridiculous rotation which causes a one-ton truck to turn up to a 40ton accident," They would handle all accident work in accident extrication and would do this work for a set standard fee paid by the Government, and by being on a specially. connected phone or alarm system, would be able to call out one to 100 trucks to the scene of any accident.

Mr Jackson suggested that they should be subjected to a discipline whereby, if they failed to arrive at the accident within a laid-down time, they would be dismissed from the scheme "for a period of time."

The second category of operator would include those who are engaged in towing vehicles the length and breadth of the country to various repair depots.

Mr Jackson suggested that "the average person who calls himself a recovery operator is, in truth, a tow truck operator."


comments powered by Disqus