Don't Pay for Dirt
Page 76
Page 79
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE wide variety of topics raised by readers' inquiries emphasizes the many-sided aspects of the road transport industry, and it is not surprising that the small operator at least finds great difficulty in understanding the many regulations, orders and Acts that surround him. Whilst he may find some solace in the remarks of High Court judges that even they On occasions have found the law incomprehensible, the unfortunate operator, more often than not, has to make a spot decision if his vehicle is not to be immobilized.
Such a comparatively simple matter as weighing a vehicle can have its complications. For example, a reader writes to inquire whether it is necessary when the vehicle is weighed for taxation purposes for the spare wheel to be in place, together with any other items; also whether it is necessary to have tare weights painted on the sides of vehicles.
Under Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, unladen weight includes the body and all parts which are necessary to, or ordinarily used with, the vehicle when working on the
road. If there are alternative bodies or parts, the heavier weight is taken. The unladen weight does not, however, include water, fuel, traction batteries, or loose tools and loose equipment.
The qualification requiring that the heavier alternative body or parts shall be taken can result in some injustice. This is more readily apparent when tractors are used with a variety of semi-trailers. Works transport, for example, may involve the use of a mechanical horse with different types of semitrailer, such as tippers, boxvans and platforms.
Taxation Injustices Whilst the unladen weight of a 6-ton platform semi-trailer may be about 11 tons, a tipping semi-trailer may well be 10 cwt. heavier. With the mechanical horse, the overall weights would be approximately 3+ tons and 4 tons, with corresponding duty rates of £42 10s. and £50. Therefore, although during most of the annual mileage the tractor is probably coupled to the• platform semi-trailers, the higher rate must be paid.
If, however, additional work subsequently makes necessary a second mechanical horse, whilst the number and type of semitrailers remain the same, it appears both illogical and iniquitous that the new unit also has to be taxed at the highest fate, because it would be impossible for both tractors at any time to be hauling the heaviest semi-trailer—the tipper. In such circumstances, and they arc not by any means uncommon, it would seem that the taxation authorities would still be having their pound of flesh if the unladen weight were computed on the basis of the first and second heaviest semi-trailers, which would at least be a physical possibility. '
Where reweighing is required by the authorities, the operator would be well advised to check the vehicle's weight, if possible. at the official weighbridge. Whilst he may not be surprised to find that road dirt has added to the weight as n42 shown on the licence disc, the extent to which this can happen can be unexpectedly high. The obvious remedy is to wash down thoroughly by steam. Additional pieces of equipment, which by themselves are comparatively light, in total may make just the difference to place the vehicle into the next higher tax category, incurring a further £5 of annual duty. Fitting of oversize tyres and appropriate rims, for example, may add 3-4 cwt. to the vehicle. Having taken all reasonable precautions before reweighing, it is indeed exasperating to find appreciable variation in weights recorded by different public weighbridges, or even differing weights recorded' by the same weighbridge at various times. The painting of the unladen weight is necessary only on the near side and is limited to the following vehicles:—locomotives and motor tractors (i.e., non-load-carrying vehicles), heavy motor cars and certain types of trailer. A heavy motor car is a goods vehicle weighing over 3 tons unladen.
Transfer of a Licence
Bankruptcy forms the subject of another inquiry, though not, fortunately, impending for the operator. He writes for enlightenment as to the take-over of a B licence when the holder has bankrupted. Does this take-over become automatic, he asks, assuming that a trustee has consented to consigning the vehicle over to the person interested, or does the application have to go through the traffic court in the normal way?
Relevant information is given in Section 22 of the Goods Vehicles (Licences and Prohibitions) Regulations, 1952, where under bankruptcy (or other stated reasons) the holder of the licence ceases to be the user of the vehicles authorized. The person carrying on the business is deemed to be the holder of the licence if he notifies the Licensing Authority accordingly within one month, stating that the holder has ceased to operate, and gives the reason for the change and, of course, the name of the person by whom the business is being carried on, Within a month of sending such a notice, an application for a new licence has to be made. It is further provided that the period during which such a person shall be deemed to be the holder of the licence shall in no case extend beyond the date on which the licence would have normally expired.
A more specialized problem is presented by a company of civil engineers who inquire as to the legal position regarding the driving of dumpers, mobile cranes and the like on the highway. They are 'particularly concerned with rear-wheel or, alternatively, all-wheel steer. This matter is dependent upon the definition of overhang found in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. 1955, and in particular Regulation 3(1), which defines overhang as the distance between the rearmost point of the vehicle and the centre of the rear axle of twoaxled vehicles; or a point 4 in. behincipa line midway between the two rear axles of a three-axIed vehicle, or alternatively the point on the longitudinal axis of the vehicle from which a line if projected at right angles would-pass though the centre of the minimum turning circle.
Regulation 34 states that the "overhang of a motor tractor must not exceed 6 ft., whilst it is limited to 50 per cent, of the wheelbase for heavy motor cars and motor cars. These definitions of motor vehicles are to be found in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and are briefly as follows: a motor tractor is a nonload-carrying vehicle weighing 71 tons unladen or less, a heavy Motor car is a load-carrying vehicle over 3 tons unladen and a motor car up to 3 tons unladen.'
As the overhang (i.e., rear erverhang) of a four-wheeled vehicle is calculated with reference to the non-steer axle, load-carrying vehicles such as dumpers cannot comply with theie Regulations. For general road work they can, however, be used under. the provisos of the Regulations Si(e)(iii) or 43(c)(iii), but only if their use on Public roads is confined to that of works.trucks.
.
It would be difficult for a rearsteered motor tractor to satisfy Regulation 34, but mobile cranes which do not comply may be used on the roads under the terms of Motor Vehicles (Authorization of Special Types) General Order, 1955, subject to special conditions requiring additional . attendants and, in some cases, notice of• movement according to dimension and weights.
Another queStion concerns insurance. Usually when advice is required on howto make. an insurance..clairn. for loss of use following an aceident it comes.' from a. professional haulier in doubt as to the distinction between lost of profits aricl,loSs of .earnings. In thit. instance, however, the operators concerned are ancillary users, so loss of profit does not arise.
• As carriers of a perishable .commodity, it is imperative to thern that every load should be delivered on time„ and the only way of ensuring this is to provide themselves with spare vans, it being impossible to hire the non-standard type vehicle they
employed at short notice. .
_When, however. they Claimed for a proportion of the operating cost of this spare Vehicle while another vehicle damaged in an accident was being repaired. they had difficulty in getting their insurance company.to agree. 'Theinsurers took the view_ that unless there were a specific hire charge for a replacement vehicle, or the users themselves had licensed an additional vehicle, a claim for the use of a replacement vehicle that the question of
was not valid because it already formed part of their •owil fleet.
Provided it is agreed that the claim concerns specialized vehicles for which a replacement cannot be readily hired, it would seem that the operators had good grounds for claiming that they were entitled to a reasonable proportion of the cost of providing the spare vehicle. Such a contention is supported by a decision given in the House of Lords, when it was held that a harbour board which maintained an emergency lightship ready at short notice to replace any damaged vessel was entitled to damages in respect of the services of the emergency lightship in addition to the Cost of repairs to the damaged vessel.
Because of the great increase in the use of specialized types of vehicle, this decision is particularly pertinent to road trans port operators nday. S.B.