Accusing Fingers
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
STRONGER headboards for lorries are likely to be -an overdue outcome of the proposed new Construction and Use Regulation requiring loads to be stowed in such a way as to prevent any movement. The draft• paragraph states: "The load carried by any vehicle shall at all times be so secured or be in such a position that danger is not likely to be caused to any person by reason of the load or any part thereof falling from the vehicle or by reason of any other movement of the load or any part thereof in relation to the vehicle."
Its intention is to prevent loose loads from crashing through drivers' cabs during heavy braking—a real danger with some existing vehicles— as well as to deal with the nuisance of goods falling into the road. It is often easier to secure a load laterally than longitudinally, and in practice it may be impossible to prevent slight forward or rearward movement. In these circumstances, it is vital that the headboard should be sufficiently strong to withstand any impact that it is likely to receive. It should not be necessary to enforce such an obvious safety measure by statutory regulation, but experience has shown that it is.
Accidents have been responsible for other changes proposed in the Construction and Use Regulations. On several occasions the jibs of mobile cranes and other projecting items have pierced the upper decks of buses, with fatal results. It is, therefore, reasonable that loads and equipment that overhang a vehicle to a substantial extent should be prominently marked by a standard form of sign, and that a mate should be carried to help the driver at difficult points, such as restricted road intersections.
Police Assistance The proposal that, in some instances, two days' notice of the movement must be given to the police should not create hardship. Indeed, it may help operators by ensuring the assistance of the police in the expeditious passage of an awkward load. If any inconvenience occurs, the sufferer is likely to be the-customer who expects an awkward load to be moved at almost a moment's notice.
Little or no danger is caused by loads carried under the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, 1955, and the stricter control over them proposed by the Minister of Transport is difficult to defend. Admittedly, they create traffic congestion, but their movement is essential to national prosperity, and under present road conditions dislocation is inevitable. It is the price that has to be paid by a 20th-century industrial nation for a 19th-century road system. The obvious solution is to make the roads fit to accommodate the great items of plant that modern civilization demands, rather than to try to retard industrial progress by placing unnecessary difficulties in the way of producing and delivering the machinery that the world requires.
It is the in-between loads, projecting perhaps 10 ft. to the front or rear of a vehicle, that are likely to cause the most danger. The Minister's proposals to deal with them are reasonable, and any expense incurred by operators in putting them into effect will be justified in the interests of public safety.
There is a fear among hauliers that the new draft regulations are in pursuance of a campaign to drive outsize loads from road to rail. In most cases, however, they are consigned to destinations not connected to rail and part of the journey must be made by road. Customers will not welcome double handling, and are likely to continue to demand road transport throughout.