The car transporter prosecution in detail
Page 41
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'If extensions are included in length, there would seem to be no limit as to length'—Police 'Minister expressly recognized there may be this special type of apparatus'—Defence plea
iNLESS the Police at Lancaster decide to appeal against the dismissal by the South Lonsdale magistrates of charges concerning a car transporter operated by Progressive Deliveries Ltd., of Coventry, and, by way of a case stated, the matter to the Divisional Court as a test case, the legal use of car transporters trailers carrying cars which (in some cases) are supported by extensions (or flaps) and aft remains substantiallyin doubt.
was in the early spring during the ng of an application by Progressive 'cries for 20 transporters before the Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. . Hodgson, at Oxford, that certain ons were expressed by British Railin the main, and then by British I Services, that it was impossible to load certain transporters without :ding the permitted lengths provided the regulations. Despite assurances the managing director of ProgresMir. W. R. Horn, that " none of our les causes us anxiety ", still Mr. F. Wrottesley, for the Railways, cd that in view of the most recent Court ruling in the case of Claude les (Carlisle) Ltd. the matter may be in doubt."
ale 11 days before the hearing of the -essive application at Oxford was led and eventually refused by Mr, son, a Progressive Deliveries vehicle railer was stopped and measured by 'ace at Carnforth. This led to the trance of the company before the Lonsdale magistrates last week.
e charges were: (I) using a heavy ; motor lorry (a car transporter) vehicle did not comply with Rega1 6(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Conlon and Use) Regulations, 1955, as ded. in that the overall length of 'chicle exceeded 30 ft., contrary to lid regulations, and Section 64(2) if 960 Road Traffic Act: and (2) using ivy goods motor lorry (car transr) drawing a four-wheeled trailer vehicle did not comply with Regu53 of the Motor Vehicles (Conion and Use) Regulations. 1955, in the overall length of the trailer uling the drawbar) exceeded 22 ft,, ary to the said Regulations and m 64(2) of the Road Traffic Act,
Explaining the charges, Inspector A. W. Hyde said that the chassis of the drawing vehicle measured, overall, 28 ft. 7 in. A two-deck body was fitted to it by a series of U-bolts which extended the length of the chassis and hinged extensions were attached to the body on both decks. These extensions, when in use, made the overall length of the vehicle 35 ft. 4 in„ which was 5 ft. 4 in. longer than the regulations permitted. The trailer was similarly fitted with extensions to the rear of both decks, bringing the overall length up to 25 ft. 3 in.-3 ft. 3 in, in excess of the length permitted.
Three cases were mentioned to the Justices—Andrems v. Kershaw, Berson r. Vipond and the Claude Hughes appeal.
In Andrews v. Kershaw, the Inspector continued, the Divisional Court held by majority that the permitted overall length of a motor Vehicle was not exceeded, although the lowering of the tailboard would have the effect of increasing the length beyond the permitted distance.
In Basal( v. Vipond an articulated vehicle was constructed to carry ears ( n two platforms, one above the other. The lower platform accommodated two cars. one behind the other; the upper, two or three cars. The vehicle was constructed with extensions which could be drawn out a sufficient distance to carry a third car with its wheels resting on the extension. When the vehicle was laden and the lifting gear raised into a vertical position, the overall length did not exceed the permitted length, but when a third car was carried on the upper platform, the lifting gear could not he raised vertically and was hinged out, and it was contended that the overall length of the transporter then exceeded the permitted length.
In Boson v. Vipond, the Divisional Court held that the vehicle as originally
constructed with the lifting gear in a vertical position did not exceed the permitted length; the slanting of the lifting gear to accommodate the third car could not be said to be a reconstruction of the vehicle, and therefore the vehicle with the lifting gear in the slanting position was still within the permitted length.
The Claude Hughes case, the Inspector reminded the magistrates, concerned a cattle container which was secured to the platform of the vehicle, making the overall length in excess of 30 ft. The lower court (it was the South Lonsdale Magistrates again) decided that the container was part of the vehicle and was not in itself a load—a decision which was upheld by the Divisional Court on appeal.
These three appeals, the Inspector submitted, in no way affected the present Progressive prosecution. The extensions in Progressive were solely for the purpose of enlarging the decks of both vehicles. They were so constructed and hinged that when not in use they fell over and flapped on to the body of the vehicle. The contention was that when carrying a full complement of cars they were permanent, and the case bore no relation to the slanting tailboard and lifting gear being out of the vertical.
"If extensions such as these, when in use, are not to be included in the overall length," the Inspector concluded, 'there would seem to be no limit as to length and no restriction as ,to the ultimate length of vehicles and trailers and, in fact, no point in making Construction and Use Regulations of this nature."
The defence put forward for Progressive by Mr. E. S. Temple, of Counsel, concerned the law only, though had the magistrates ruled against him, he said, he had "ample evidence" to call.
Agreeing that the length of the drawing vehicle exceeded 30 ft., he submitted that the construction of the vehicle was entirely within the ambit of the relevant Regulations and its use was not an offence.
The Regulations were divided into two parts—(a) construction and (b) use. Regu,lations 5 to 58 inclusive dealt with B1 3
construction, he submitted, and the others dealt with the use of the vehicles on the roads after they had been constructed.
Referring to the fact that the charges against Progressive were that they " used" a vehicle contrary to the Regulations, Mr. Temple said there was a distinction between " construction " and " use " which was vitally important, as was the distinction between the length of the vehicle and the length of the load.
Amending Regulations
The hinged flap principle, which was accepted by the motor transport industry as long ago as 1948, derived from the Andrews v. Kershaw case. There the matter had rested until Bason v. Vipond was considered in January of last year— a case which was indistinguishable, he submitted, from the Progressive case under consideration. Soon afterwards, continued Mr. Temple, there was laid before Parliament the Construction and Use (Amendment) Regulations, 1962, which mentioned "any crane or other special appliance or apparatus fitted to the vehicle which is a permanent or essentially permanent fixture ".
It was quite clear from that that the Minister had such vehicles as transporters in mind. "I say that this thing does not permanently affect the length of the
vehicle. It may affect the length of the load, but I say that even if I was wrong. I am given authority to use this flap by these Regulations," he submitted. The Minister had expressly recognized that there may be this special type of apparatus which was permitted, provided it was not of such a length which required the operator, under the Regulations, to inform the police. On the authorities as they stood Bason v. Vipond was clearly good law and an operator was entitled to use the hinged tailboard, which did not alter the construction of the vehicle.
In the Claude Hughes case there clearly had been a reconstruction of the vehicle, went on Mr. Temple. The High Court was there saying that it was only of importance in this respect—that the question under Regulation 6 was whether there had been a construction or reconstruction. This was not at issue in the present case, because the fitting of a hinged tailboard was not a reconstruction.
Mr. Temple concluded by saying that the extensions were used by Progressive for accommodating the load, but his clients were not charged with carrying an excessively long load. "1 am in effect being charged with reconstructing my vehicle in breach of the Regulations ". that
"the vehicle was so constructed "; that the length of the vehicle with the tailboard down exceeded that permitted by law. But so did the vehicle in Andrews v. Kershaw and the transporter in Bason v. Vipond. Jilt was right that the vehicles were too long on the roads, then there was no reason why the Minister should not make the appropriate regulations, Mr. Temple submitted.
Inspector Hyde, in reply, resisted the suggestion that the vehicle was in the "special apparatus" category. Tailboards and lifting apparatus had other uses, he contended, but in the particular case in question the extensions had only one use —the carrying of more load. Therefore it made the vehicle longer.
Apart from saying that they found there was no case for Progressive Deliveries to answer and (when pressed to award 100 guineas costs against the police) that the police had carried out their duty, the magistrates did not indicate specifically whether or not the charges had been wrongly phrased or, based on the submissions of Mr. Temple, the case was indistinguishable from Bason v. Vipond. Neither did they give any indication with regard to the "special appliances" argument. So there the matter rests, unless or until the issue is tested before the Divisional Court.