letters
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Road damage from tandem axles
The note in CM September 7 and the reference to the AASHO tests took me back to the controversy in 1964 when British Railways claimed that heavy goods vehicles operated over trunk routes paid too little in road taxes in view of the cost of providing the roads for them.
About the same time a study group of the International Union of Railways derived from the AASHO tests results a fourth power rule — namely that the wear on a road of given construction varied as the fourth power of the axle load.
British Railways' calculations did not use the fourth power rule, which they correctly regarded as a dubious approximation. Their calculations made use of the actual equations provided in the AASHO reports. They also took account of the tandem-axle effect, which also showed clearly in the AASHO results. This may be simply described as follows:— Consider two simple axles loaded to 5 tons each and one tandem-axle loaded to 10 tons. If the fourth power rule applied and there was no tandem-axle effect the tandem axle would be responsible for eight times the combined wear on the road of the two simple axles. The AASHO results showed that the tandem axle would be responsible for 70 per cent of the combined wear. (I write from memory as to the 70 per cent, but it was certainly less than 100 per cent.) I would simply add that taking account of tandem axles greatly reduced BR's assessment of the cost of road provision which could be attributed to heavy vehicles as compared with other road users.
D. W. GLASSBOROW, National Travel (NBC) Ltd.
All about dollies
I have read Commercial Motor for a number of years and have looked to it to provide me with up to date and precise information. However, I cannot agree with the comments made by Johnny Johnson about dollies in his report entitled "Take care not to be a checkpoint 'Charlie(DV/August 24).
In recent months my colleagues and I have spent a considerable amount of time researching into the use and operation of dollies with a view to rationalizing our considerable nightly trunking operations. Only quite recently have we been able to convince our "masters" of the apparent advantages of such a system together with the information that dollies are legally acceptable. However, JohnnyJohnson's comments do nothing towards backing our case at the best they are somewhat apathetic and at the worst uninformed and incorrect.
Johnny Johnson states ". . . nobody is prepared to make an issue of it to establish whether a dolly is a 'trailer' according to the law. . . ." There is no doubt in the eyes of the DoE that a dolly is a trailer, at least for plating purposes and can be plated in one of several ways according to its anticipated future usage.
Johnny Johnson goes on to state ''... therefore the outfit comprises a drawing unit and two trailers and so is illegal." Come, come, since when has it been illegal to draw two "trailers" provided that certain conditions are met? Regulation 116 of SI No. 321 1969 states "Heavy motor cars and motor cars may draw only one trailer or two if one is a towing implement and the other is a vehicle partly on or suspended from the towing implement."
I would ask all the doubting Thomases who are frightened of having their toes chopped off -What is a dolly if it is not a towing implement and . . . how would one convert a semi-trailer into a drawbar trailer without placing it partly on the dolly (the first trailer in 321/69/116)?
Personally, I have never doubted that dollies are legal but if the CM still feels uncertain I suggest that there is no organization better suited to arrange a test case than the CM itself. The road transport industry has to pay heed to a good many regulations but it can well do without what appear to me to be self-imposed ones.
R. S. MARKHAM, Leamington Spa.
[Although Section 65 (i) (c) of the Road Traffic Act restricts the number of trailers which may be drawn by a motor car or heavy motor car to one, Regulation 136 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Reoulations 1973 — superseding the1969 equivalent — allows two where one of the trailers is a towing implement. Though it is not stated, "towing implement" is usually taken to mean recovery apparatus such as a vehicle ambulance. And in the 1973 Regulations "towing implement" is defined as "a device on wheels designed for the purpose of enabling a motor vehicle to draw another vehicle by the attachment of that device to another vehicle in such a manner that part of that other vehicle is secured to and either rests on or is suspended from the device and (our italics) some but not all of the wheels on which that other vehicle normally runs are raised off the ground': A dolly does not do this — Ed. I
Young Libs' campaign
Though, as a past Parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Party I am taking great interest in the current Young Libs' campaign against heavy goods vehicles. I do not wish to raise political argument in your columns, but it is ironic that in the same August 31 edition you report the fining of a Liberal councillor for covering a road sign to keep traffic out of a town. This latter report reveals that the said councillor had collected petitions, written to various local authorities and talked to his MP. One can understand the gentleman's frustration.
As one who lives very close to the A20 and observes the movement of traffic on it each day
it would appear that Mr Hain may well be right to turn his attentions firstly to the huge Continental "monstersnow traversing our Kent roads. One of these sped through our village recently in excess of 55 mph — and, yes. I broke the law to satisfy myself — in complete disregard of the 40 mph speed limit. All right, even at 40 mph the unwary child might not have been missed but at 55 mphplus the chances must be much less.
The fact that the YL's campaign has stirred the Young Conservatives in the area into action as well just goes to prove that it is the fact that petitions and peaceful demonstrations fail to move the deaf ears of the higher authorities into action, that causes frustration and results in more stringent action by "Tom, Dick or Harry".
I hope the YLs will be very careful and not cause any damage or injury and I accept that trade is all important. Human life is, however, vital and there is a limit to endurance. We all know why the chicken crossed the road and many know that it is equally vital for some women with prams and elderly persons to cross roads and often they cannot make it any faster than the chicken) Their health and safety is of paramount importance.
J. P. JOHNSON, West Kingsdown, Kent.
Tampering with lorries
With reference to the article "Tampering with lorries: a legal view" (CM August 311, does not Section 146 of the C & U Regulations become involved if a person deliberately lets tyres down?
The operator is required to -equip with tyres designed and maintained to support the axle weight. . . ." Letting down of tyres is an interference with the operator's legal obligations. A legal remedy must therefore be available under more precise terms than occasioning a breach of the peace.
DOUGLAS CORN ELISSEN, General Stage Manager and Transport Manager, The National Theatre, at The Old Vic, London SE1 [The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations lay down standards for the user of a motor vehicle and interference with those standards by an outsider is not legislated for in these Regulations.
Legally, it would appear that the most likely offence would be "conduct likely to occasion a breach of the peace" though there would be nothing to prevent the injured party bringing a civil action to recover any expenditure caused through damage or inconvenience. Ed 1