1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
UNBALANCED JUSTICE
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The scales of justice are heavily weighted against the truck operator under current overloading laws. Transport consultant Stan Thomas takes a close look at how the law tips the balance against the haulier.
• The Law may be an ass, but when it comes to overloading, it is a drunken oneeyed giant stumbling through a thick fog. No one can condone overloading, least of all the genuine operator who sees the getrich-quick cowboys making a fast buck by being able to undercut rates, hauling more than a legal payload. Yet, through inadequacies in the laws and the inconsistency of the weighing techniques employed by the enforcement bodies, many operators are being fined for overloads which simply do not exist.
By failing to take fully into account the problems which face even the most conscientious of operators, our present laws produce probably more convictions on technical grounds than on the need to protect society (and the genuine operator) from the minority of hauliers who wilfully overload their vehicles. The general public assumes all lorries to be overloaded as a matter of course, an attitude no doubt bolstered by the equally misinformed national press and television, and which is also reflected in the courts, from whom we expect to get justice.
NO DEFENCE
The offence of overloading is absolute, which means that no defence (other than two statutory dispensations) can be submitted in contestation. All that can be done in the case of such a prosecution is to contest the accuracy of the weighing method, or submit a plea of mitigation on the grounds of being morally innocent. But this is a Catch 22 situation, reversing the very foundation of justice, where guilt must be proven, to one of having to prove innocence. Furthermore, as the courts do not recognise that an operator may have exercised all due diligence to ensure his consignments were of the correct weight etc, there are very few acquittals in overloading cases on these grounds.
For comparison, take another form of absolute offence, that of wheel loss from a vehicle. Recent research has shown that 40% of wheel loss cases are discharged on the grounds of the accused being held morally blameless, compared to only 8% similarly acquitted for overloading. The fact that it must be easier to establish direct mitigation in an individual case of overloading than to prove how well a vehicle may have been maintained in the indeterminable past underlines the imbalance in sentencing applied by the courts.
A final injustice (which applies to all prosecutions and not just those for overloading) is the overall attitude which the courts often adopt with regard to costs. Even where the accused is found not guilty or acquitted, the courts rarely award costs in the defendant's favour. This means it is often financially more advantageous for an operator to plead guilty, even if wrongfully, than to contest a prosecution. And this factor can also discourage an appeal against conviction. Not until the Crown and the DTp are made more aware of its accountability for costs will the more meaningless and frivolous charges be kept out of the courts.
Considering the complexity and controversy surrounding its interpretation and enforcement, the law relating to overloading is surprisingly simple, and can be summarised in a single sentence: "It is an offence to cause or permit a vehicle to be present on a public highway the weight of which is in excess of the maximum permissible weights displayed on the vehicle plate." It shoud be noted that "causing" (by the driver) and "permitting" (by the operator) are the reasons why, under normal circumstances, both parties are prosecuted for an overloading offence. But the unscrupulous or incompetent consignor who understates his consignment weight is not charged with "causing or permitting" and the innocent haulier who accepts a load in good faith is left totally to bear the legal consequence. Weight tickets obtained immediately before or after weighing by the Enforcement Bodies have no legal status in court, and can at best only be submitted in mitigation.
DISTINCTION
As the law recognises a separate distinction between the individual axle and the gross plated weight of a vehicle, it is possible for a number of separate charges to be brought for what is seemingly the same offence, with provision for a maximum fine of £2,000 for each offence (and a similar potential penalty for the driver).
Turning from the inadequacies of the legal process, it is worth discussing the technical inadequacy of the methods used to accurately determine a vehicle's weight.
As every operator knows, whenever a vehicle is weighed on a dynamic device, a tolerance of ±150kg is allowed for each axle, and an overall tolerance of 150kg multiplied by the number of axles is allowed on the gross. This tolerance, however, is only to allow for the possible inaccuracy of the vehicle weighing equipment, and it does not take account of the inherent mechanical discrepancies which are likely to occur when weighing multiaxle vehicles. Furthermore, this 150kg tolerance is not a statutory right, but one set down by a DTp Code of Practice. No tolerance is, of course, permitted for static weighing.
Compounding the allowance of 150kg per axle to determine a gross tolerance is both arbitrary and unjust when expressed as a percentage of gross vehicle weight. See Table 1.
Considering the intricacy of weighing accurately a 38-tonne combination, compared with the relative simplicity of a twoaxle rigid, then the unfairness of the situation becomes even more apparent.
As more than 75% of all prosecutions relate to individual axles rather than gross overloads, it is obvious the majority of offences are of a technical rather than a wilful nature, and are most commonly caused by incorrect load redistribution during deliveries. Obviously, there is no profit to be gained or saved by simply overloading an axle due to weight distribution.
To demonstrate the inaccuracy of even the simplest weighing operation, a twoaxle rigid vehicle plated at 16.25 tonnes was taken to a busy weighbridge, and test-weighed five times. Nothing of the vehicle was altered whatsoever, and the marginal amount of fuel consumed can be discounted. For the weights recorded, rounded to the nearest 10kg, see Table 2.
HOURLY TESTS
The tests were made at approximately hourly intervals — as it was hoped to discover if temperature, humidity and the constant use of the weighbridge affected its accuracy. It is interesting to note the lack of consistency in the figures, and the front axle variance is greater than that of the rear, despite having a lower loading. A major cause of front axle variation is the manner in which a vehicle is brought to rest on the platform of the weighbridge. 'Fen front axle weighings were made, using opposing driving techniques. See Table 3. The conclusions to he drawn by these tests demonstrate that the manner of proceeding on to a weighbridge will effect the accuracy of the readings obtained.
The check weighing of trailer bogies is remarkably inconsistent where mechanical suspension is concerned. A trailer with a widespread tandem bogie was weighed on a static weighbridge, by both driving forward and reversing the trailer on to the platform. The greatest variances, recorded in tonnes, are shown in Table 4.
Note that only the gross weights are reasonably accurate. The cause of inaccuracy in individual axle weights is the inherent friction and inertia of the mechanical components forming the bogie compensating mechanism.
And yet, prosecutions are now being brought under section 79 of the C & U Acts which totally disregard that when traversing a dynamic weigher, a bogie may be in the process of compensating, and therefore the individual axle weights recorded will not be equal. Anyone who doubts this problem need only watch how a mechanical suspension settles in a series of jerks as a trailer is loaded.
Another aspect which influences trailer bogie weight, but one not often realised by the operator, is that of the coupling height of the tractor unit, for it is possible to increase the bogie load simply by coupling to a vehicle with a higher fifth wheel.
Before leaving the problems of static weighing, it is worth reiterating the authoritative work performed by Bill Brock (CM 22 September 1988). He discovered an alarming state of affairs when he testweighed a loaded unit and trailer at numerous public weighbridges in Warwickshire. The results were a terrible inditment of the invidious problems facing our industry. Was the vehicle three tonnes underweight, or already breaking the law? The Department of Transport expressed great surprise when these figures were brought to its attention — but not half as much as the surprise an operator would have felt facing prosecution for having relied upon them in good faith. None of the above weights would have cleared an operator who had subsequently been weighed and declared overloaded.
Dynamic axle weighers eliminate many of the problems posed by static weighbridges, but they do have their own set of peculiarities. Running a vehicle over a weigher three or four times will produce a variety of readings — although only one pass is allowed on a test weigh, even when a prosecutable overload is detected.
TANK VEHICLES
One of the most worrying features of dynamic weighers is the errors which can occur when weighing tank vehicles. Experiments have proved it takes a considerable time for the contents of a tank to settle to a reasonable level when disturbed, such as when a tanker might be required to accelerate from rest to drive over a dynamic weigher.
Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated if the tanker is queuing on uneven ground awaiting its turn to be weighed, for, although the law requires an 8m level approach to a dynamic weigher (DTp sites normally have 12m) the load will not be level, and gross inaccuracies will result.
It is also of concern that it is recognised with dynamic axle weighers that a strong gust of wind has been known to adversely affect an individual axle weight recording by more than the 150kg tolerance permitted.
All the major bodies representing the interests of the transport user recognise the need to remove the unfair burden of the present overloading laws. With the approach of 1992 and the inevitability of the 40-tonne vehicle, the Government must respond to the realisation that with the increase in permitted weights the possibility of prosecution for technical overloads will increase enormously. This is hardly a formula to give the UK operator parity with the rest of Europe.
Both the vrA and RHA are actively seeking reform, and make common cause in a demand for the recognition of "due diligence" as a defence in court. It is imperative our industry remonstrates regarding the inadequacy of the present laws, while also demonstrating our recognition and concern to the problems of wilful overloading.
In conclusion, it is worth reciting the three "golden rules" to follow whenever a vehicle is weighed by the enforcement authorities.
D Proceed very, slowly on to, or across, a fixed weighbridge, stopping without the use of the foot or handbrake to eliminate suspension wind-up. Leave the vehicle in gear, with the hand brake off. Do not
weigh with the engine running.
El Do not proceed across a dynamic weigher unless the vehicle is square on to the weigh beam for at least the length of the approach apron or its own length, whichever is the greater. Approaching "in a curve" will put radial loads into the axles which can lock the suspension and cause (prosecutable) errors.
0 Don't feel intimidated by the authorities. Appearing submissive is not likely to assist in avoiding a prosecution if you are overloaded.
If you are deemed to be overloaded, but feel that you have justifiable grounds to consider otherwise, ask for a second weight after you have possession of the weight ticket. If you are refused (and there are no legal grounds for refusal), make sure you record all the relevant details. If you can obtain a second weigh that records differently from the first, at least you have something upon which to consider a contestation.
D by Stan Thomas