Prevention — or pretence?
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FUTILITY can take many forms. Ploughing the ocean, sowing seed in the desert, chasing the wind — Lorenzo da Ponte compared these to trusting woman's fidelity. Two hundred years later his comparisons are equally applicable to the Road Haulage Association's recent revival of its long-standing request for a "due diligence" defence against overloading charges.
That is not to deny that hauliers have a serious problem in this matter. Dishonest or careless consignors, the shortage of weighbridges and their restricted opening times, the impossibility of defence against an "absolute" offence, the heavy maximum fine, the numerous charges that can result from one incident, the risk of disciplinary action against the 0-licence — these are all quite genuine complaints.
Nevertheless, the idea has been turned down several times in the past 20 years by Ministers of both political parties. Mr Ridley is not going to be any more obliging than his predecessors. Such a concession would inevitably be seen by the public as yet another concession to the "allpowerful" haulage lobby. But (for once) that is not the main objection.
The Department of Transport can hardly deny that there is a problem. But equally the RHA can hardly deny that a due diligence defence, besides helping those with real problems, would make it easier for the less conscientious to get away with deliberate overloading. And the current problems with motorway maintenance, not to mention the Severn Bridge, mean that the DTp is genuinely concerned to avoid further damage.
The Freight Transport Association seems to have realised this. For several years its preferred solution to the problem was a statutory tolerance on axle weights where the gross weight was not exceeded. This used to be advanced with the same regularity as the RHA's "due diligence" solution, and with the same total lack of success. Unlike the RHA, the FTA seems to have given up, perhaps because its proposal was hardly consistent with the argument that higher gross weights do not necessarily mean more road damage.
Quite apart from its substance, the timing of the RHA's revived request is also unpropitious. The current EEC wrangle which, with luck, might be settled when the Transport Ministers meet next month is (like almost everything else connected with the EEC) complicated beyond belief. But at the root is the Italians' demand for higher drive axle weights — at least 11.5 tonnes.
As part of the last May's disputed EEC package, Mr Ridley has already accepted the principle of a 40-tonne gross weight at some unspecified future date. Astonishingly, this did not provoke a public outcry. Perhaps it has finally sunk into the public mind that the dreaded 38-tonners have not brought the predicted calamities; let us hope so.
But like the ETA, the public has also learned that axle weights matter more than gross weights. Mr Ridley might have to concede another halftonne on this in order to secure the other goodies in last May's EEC package — including simpler and more flexible hours laws, more international freedom, and more generous funding of transport infrastructure. So he will not want to expose another flank by seeming soft on overloading.
So the RHA's request is likely to be rejected once more. But when this happens the association should not simply put the matter back into the "Pending" tray for another two years or so. For there is a real problem. And there are things that could be done to ease it.
The steps proposed by both associations have one fatal flaw. They deal with the punishment of overloading. They should deal with its prevention.
Prevention needs weighbridges, available in sufficient numbers and at appropriate times. Neither of these conditions is met at present. But they could be.
The DTp has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on installing dynamic axle weighers up and down the country. Despite doubts about one or two of these installations, or the way in which individual checks have been carried out, no one seriously challenges the fundamental accuracy of these devices.
Yet most of them stand locked and unused for perhaps six days out of seven, and the whole of almost every night. Hauliers cannot use them to check that their customers are not cheating them, or that their loads are properly distributed.
If the RHA genuinely wants to make it easier for its members to avoid overloading it should surely try to arrange with the DTp for some of these bridges to be made available for nonenforcement purposes. They will probably find that they are pushing at an open door.
For the DTp has already taken a step in this direction by the experimental use of display attachments to their weighers. These enable drivers to check both gross and axle weights at any time of the day or night. But these can only be used where the equipment can be safeguarded against vandalism — for example, in ports or motorway maintenance areas.
Most of the weighers are not in such places, for obvious reasons. If they are going to be made available for use by the industry when DTp examiners or local trading standards officers are not using them they will need to be manned. And neither the DTp nor the local authorities will regard this as their job.
So it will be up to the trade associations to take on the job.
Working out the details of such a scheme would reveal all sorts of practical difficulties. But inevitably the most doubtful point must be whether there is a genuine unfilled demand by hauliers. After all, consignors like quarries, mines and suger beet factories already have weighbridges.
How many hauliers have a problem? And even if they have, will they not be tempted still to hope for the best rather than find out the facts?
The question can be put more starkly. Is the RHA's chief concern to make it easier for hauliers to avoid overloading? Or does it simply want to make life easier for them when they get caught? In the first case there is some hope; in the second they are ploughing the ocean.