Vehicle weights and weighing, 2
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HE TRADITIONAL method of veighing a vehicle is to place it in a weighbridge, either with all :s wheels on the weighbridge platform or by weighing each xle separately and adding the xle weights together to obtain ere total weight.
The accuracy of this "double veighing" has been questioned -om time to time, particularly if -re approach to the weighbridge ; not completely level. The Veighing of Motor Vehicles Jse of Dynamic Axle Weighing tlachines) Regulations 1978, which came into effect on ;eptember 15, 1981 gave pproval to a completely ifferent type of weighing pparatus.
When a vehicle is to be weighed using this type of -rachine, the weighing is carried ut by the vehicle being driven r the trailer drawn across the latform of the machine in ccordance with the instructions f the person in charge of it. The ehicle must travel at a steady peed so that the machine can how successively the weight of ach axle as it passes over it. Regulation 4 states that it is to e presumed, unless the ontrary is proved, that the -rachine is accurate to within + 50kg (roughly 3cwt). Where the lachine records the sum of the /eights transmitted by all the xles of the vehicle, then a )terance of 150kg multiplied by le number of axles is
resumed.
This means that with an eight/heeled rigid vehicle, that is /ith four axles, the tolerance is 50kg multiplied by four, which quals 600kg (nearly 12cwt). /hen the vehicle is weighed by is method, a certificate bowing the weights recorded :lust be given to the driver. Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 provides two statutory defences to charges of overloading. Firstly it is a defence to prove that at the material time the vehicle was travelling from the place where it had been loaded to the nearest available weighbridge for the purpose of being weighed or was travelling from that weighbridge to the nearest point at which it was reasonably practicable to off-load the vehicle to within the legal limits without causing any obstruction on a road.
Second it is a defence to prove, in cases where the limit was only exceeded by five per cent that the limit was not exceeded when the vehicle was loaded and since that time no load had been added to it.
It was held in Thurrock District Council v L. A. and A Pinch Ltd (1974) R.T.R. 269, that the onus is on a defendant to prove the facts in support of a defence of this kind. It would seem that the courts will interpret the term "the nearest weighbridge" in its strictest sense, for in Lovett v Payne (1979) Crim. L.R. 729, it was held that when calculating which is the nearest, the distance must be measured by road and not by a straight line on the map.
In this case, the driver was convicted of an overloading offence even though the weighbridge to which he was going was the nearest to his point of departure as the crow flies. The weighbridge was also situated at the same place as where his load had to be delivered, and the court held that in any event the defence is not available to a driver going to a weighbridge solely to weigh a load in connection with delivering it.
The second defence that the weight was within the legal limit when the vehicle was loaded, may be available to an operator when the increase in the weight of the load is caused by heavy rain or snow being absorbed by the load or, for example, where grain in a bulk carrier moves forward so that the front axle is overloaded.
Whichever defence is brought forward, it is necessary to prove the facts to the court. Where, for example, the defence is going to be that the vehicle was within the legal limits when it was loaded, then evidence must be called to prove that this is the case. This could be done by calling the weighbridge attendant to produce the weighbridge ticket he made out at the material time.
Drivers often have to judge the weight of a load when no weighing facilities are available. The case of Churchill v Norriss (1938)82 Sol.Jo 774, deals with the law on this subject. In this case, a driver was asked by his employer to collect a load of timber from London. The weight of the load was judged in accordance with practice by the size of the timber, and was estimated to be below the maximum allowed by the C and U Regulations.
The lorry was stopped on the way by two police officers who asked for the vehicle to be weighed, when it was found to be above the limit for that class of vehicle. The employer was not being paid to carry, and tu instructed the driver not to ca more than the legal load. The driver had instructions if he w in any doubt as to the weight p the load and, in any case, to have it weighed at the first opportunity.
It was held that the driver w guilty of using the lorry when was overloaded, and that the employer was taking a risk in allowing the practice of judgir the weight by the size of the load. The employer was accordingly guilty of allowing the offence.
In another case, Prosser v Ritchings and Another (7936) 100 JP 390, a lorry was used when the weight on the rear a: was over the permitted limit. The justices hearing the case said there was an onus on the prosecutor to show that the method of weighing was satisfactory and this had not been done.
The court was in doubt because (a) when the vehicle was weighed it was on the offside of the road and the camber of the road would affe the weighing; and (b) there wz no evidence that the front wheels were standing at a similar level to the rear wheels the level was not precisely similar the accuracy of the weighing would be affected.
The magistrates dismissed ti case and the prosecutor appealed. On appeal, it was he the regulation made no provision for such matters as camber and gradient of the roa where the weighing was carrie out and allowed the appeal.
It must be remembered that this case concerned the weigh on one axle; a different decisic may have been arrived at if thE gross weight of the vehicle ha( been computed by totalling thi weight of the two axles when t weighing took place on unever ground.