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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190 
Overloading taken lightly
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
YOU HAVE REPORTED one of the most outrageous cases of overloading to come to the courts in recent times (CM 11 March): 26.5% overweight on both aides. and 48.2% overweight on gross permitted weight.This is a flagrant disregard of the Construction and Use regulations, and would justify the further charge of using a severely overloaded vehicle.
And yet your summary says that "the considerable amount of danger caused by the amount of the excess weight was clearly reflected in the penalties imposed by the magistrates".1 don't know what experience your summariser has, but I am sure that most operators prosecuted for breaches of weight regulations would agree that, beside costs,£150 per offence for such high percentage overloads is virtually getting away with murder.
Two years ago we were prosecuted for a front axle overload of 7.87% on a three-axle rigid vehicle. When stopped, the vehicle only had seven pallets on board, out of a normal capacity of 16 pallets, and was nearly 10 tonnes,or 35.4% below its permitted weight. The offence was due to incorrect weight distribution as a result of a multi-drop diminishing load, whereby the centre of gravity of the vehicle moves toward the front axle as deliveries are made from the rear. Fines totalling £530 were imposed on the company and the driver, only £70 less than that given to BenjaminAcheampong in the case you highlighted. Isn't it time for a detailed "menu" linking fines to overload percentages, which magistrates would ignore at their peril?
Steve Hall Commercial Director