Q We are operating a number of six-wheeled rigid vehicles and
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
six-wheeled tractive units with lift-up axles. These vehicles are designed and constructed to have more than four wheels on the road in their normal loaded running condition but for empty running, or, in the case of the tractive units, moving without a trailer, the third axle is Wed so that the vehicle is operated with only four wheels in contact with the road surface.
We have been led to believe from one source that the driver need only have a Class 3 hgv driving licence when driving the vehicle in this condition, but we are still unsure if this is correct. Could you give us a definite answer on this point or is it a matter which will need to be decided as a test case in court?
Recently, one qf our drivers in one of these vehicles was stopped on a motorway by a police patrol and told to lower the raised axle, thereby turning the vehicle into a six-wheeler. Would this driver have then been breaking the law r he only held a Class 3 hgv driving licence?
One further problem which arises with these particular vehicles concerns overhang. From which point is the permissible overhang calculated when the rearmost axle of the vehicle is raised? And if, when the axle is raised, the overhang exceeds the permitted amount is there any other way of avoiding an infringement of the law?
AA study of the appropriate regulations does not provide a definite answer to the question of which class of hgv driving licence is required for these vehicles. It is quite clear that, in the case of the rigid six-wheelers, when the axle is lowered and in normal use a Class 2 or 2A licence is required; and when the tractive units have a trailer attached a Class 1 or lA licence is required whether or not the lift-up axle is raised.
However, when driven in solo form with the third axle raised the vehicles are logically only four-wheelers for which, one could assume, a Class 3 hgv driving licence would suffice. But it is at this point that the difficulty of definition occurs. The Heavy Goods Vehicles (Drivers' Licences) Regulations 1969 shows in schedule 1 the various classes of licence and in describing the vehicles which fall into Class 2 and 2A, 3 and 3A it refers to vehicles "designed and constructed to have more than four wheels in contact with the road surface". In interpreting this phrase most emphasis must be placed on the term "designed and constructed" and it must be agreed that the vehicles you are operating were originally designed and constructed to have more than four wheels in contact with the road surface. On the other hand it could be argued that they were designed and constructed for use on some occasions with not more than four wheels in contact with the road surface.
This is, we believe, very much a matter for the courts to decide. One experienced source has expressed the view to us that the courts would generally take the line that the vehicles were designed and constructed to have more than four wheels in contact with the road surface and as such would require the driver to hold a Class 2 or 2A hgv driving licence.
On the other hand, we believe that at least one Licensing Authority's expressed views agree with the suggested adequacy of a Class 3 licence when the axles are raised. And in further support of this line, the definition of a wheel in the Construction and Use Regulation 1969, namely "wheel in the case of a motor vehicle or trailer means a wheel the lyre or rim of which when the vehicle is in motion on a road is in contact with the ground" indicates that in the case of these particular vehicles, once the axle is raised, the "things" on the ends of the axle are not legally considered to be wheels and therefore should not be counted when deciding which class of hgv driving licence is required.
This appears to make the whole situation so indecisive that we strongly advise you to ensure that drivers of such vehicles err on the side of safety by holding at least Class 2 or 2A hgv driving licences.
So far as your other points are concerned, we can find no specific powers by which the police can order the raised rear axle to be lowered when these vehicles are driven unladen or without a trailer attached. But they may have felt it prudent to advise the driver to do so as a means of warning him against the possibility of another offence being committed, namely one concerning exceeding the permitted overhang. This situation is most unlikely to arise with a rigid six-wheeler but may well do so with the six-wheeled tractive units.
Going back to the definition of wheel, if it is accepted that once the rearmost axle is raised these wheels are discounted, then the overhang is measured from the centre line of the rear wheel which is in contact with the road to the end of the vehicle. This distance must not be more than 60 per cent of the distance between the centre lines of the wheels on the front and rear axles. As we have already said, in the case of the rigid six-wheeler the overhang is most unlikely to be anywhere near 60 per cent of this distance but with the tractive units it is almost certain that the 60 per cent would be exceeded and an offence committed. There
is no way in which you can get round this so far as we can see.
The police patrol in stopping your vehicle may also have had in mind paragraph 9 of the 1969 C and U Regulations which states that: "Every motor vehicle or trailer with more than four wheels and every trailer having more than two wheels being part of an articulated vehicle shall be provided with such compensating arrangement as will ensure that all the wheels remain in contact with the road surface and under the most adverse conditions will not be subject to abnormal variations of load."
For the police to interpret this particular regulation as being applicable to your case when the vehicles are travelling unladen is to take a line that was never envisaged in the original legislation, but it might stand up in court on a literal interpretation.
The intention of this regulation, in our opinion, and this has been confirmed by other sources, is to ensure that where vehicles are carrying a load the load is evenly distributed and equally balanced, for instance between the wheels on a tandem-axle bogie. Your vehicles will comply with this when the axle is in use but could not be expected to comply when the axle is raised — when its wheels again, it could be strongly argued, are no longer legally defined as "wheels".