C. and U.—and Safety
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
INDOUBTEDLY the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, had set himself a lot of homework to do over the holidays, sorting out his decisions in the "long steel" inquiry which has taken up at least seven hearing days in. the last few months.
One question that was consistently asked of applicants seeking long (over 35 ft.) trailers was: "Why do you want them." And in almost every case the reply had been the same. "I want to carry these long steel lengths more safely than I can on my authorized trailers." There have been several variations in the reasons given, ranging from a categorical statement, made by Mr. Bob Durham (the R.H.A.'s area chairman in the North) that in his opinion 'anything in excess of ' 28 ft, is better carried on a long-length trailer" to other statements that steel projecting over the cab of a vehicle was unsafe or, indeed, dangerous.
The last case to be considered in the long-steel marathon was that of Tees-Side Carriers (1963) Ltd., when Mr, J. A. McCusker, managing director of the company, said that to carry such loads over bolsters with overhangs at the front and rear (and particularly in the rear) was dangerous. When Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Tees-Side enlarged on this theory, Mr. Hanlon said: "That is a preposterous submission, unless you are going to say that the Construction and Use Regulations ought to be amended forthwith to prevent overhanging." Asked by Mr. Hanlon whether he was saying that no haulier should carry an overhanging load, Mr. Wardlaw, not unnaturally, replied with alacrity: "No."
There is a clear issue here between Mr. Hanlon, who is interpreting the law, and operators with practical experience of carrying steel in the North East. An issue between the administrative and the technical.
Whilst it goes without saying that such statutory instruments as the Construction and Use Regulations are not drafted without the assistance of the technical and scientific " boffins " at the Ministry of Transport, can it categorically be said by anyone that a certain load of steel of a specified length can be carried safely if it overhangs the vehicle either to the front or rear, or it can be carried less dangerously on a long articulated trailer than slung between a rigid flat vehicle and a drawbar trailer, as illustrated in the photograph?
Mr. Hanlon's defence of the Construction and Use Regulations is quite proper, and his suggestion (that it was preposterous to submit that vehicles, carrying within the regulations, are unsafe) is understandable. But would it not have been better to have called some technical experts to speak about the actual loads, loaded on the actual vehicles involved. There could then have been no argument about it—or could there?
B4