17m attic sets poser for magistrates
Page 4
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SUMMONSES alleging overloading of an articulated vehicle, against Kaye Goodfellow and Co (Transport Consultants) Ltd, Quinn Street, Manchester, were 'adjourned for 14 days by Carlisle magistrates last week, for consideration of a question of law.
A traffic examiner, in evidence, said the vehicle was stopped and weighed in Carlisle on November 4, 1974, when carrying a load of pipes, some of exceptional !length and some shorter. The train weight was 45,671kg, which was 13,158kg in excess of the permitted weight under the Construction and Use Regulation's, and the tractor third axle and the trailer axles were all overloaded.
Cross-examined by Mr Jonathan Lawton, defending, the examiner said that the length of the combination was 17 metres.
Mr Lawton submitted that under the law relating to this length of vehicle no offence had been disclosed. The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1973, Reg 9, provided that the overall length of an articulated combination should not exceed 15 metres, unless specially constructed and normally used for the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads.
On the evidence given this vehicle was operating outside these regulations. The Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General Order) 1973, Art 20, required notice to be given to the police if a vehicle was 18.3 metres or more in length and to highway authorities if the train weight exceeded 76,200kg. Provided the magistrates were satisfied the vehicle was being used for the carriage of an abnormal indivisible load it fell in a gap where its use was authorised but notice was not required.
Mr George Worthington, prosecuting for the Northern Licensing Authority, argued that it was for the defendant to show the vehicle was normally used for the carriage of abnormal indivisble loads and, in any event, the load was a mixed one of varying lengths.
Replying, Mr Lawton said that on the prosecution's own evidence •the vehicle came outside the Construction and Use Regulations by virtue of its length and it was for them to show the use was improper. On the question of indivisibility, the Special Types Order provided that a vehicle could carry more than one abnormal indivisible load if of the same or similar character—the load of pipes was clearly of a similar character.
After retiring, the magistrates said they were not prepared to give a ruling without time to consider a difficult question of Iarw.