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
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
vehicles Mich are subjected to an annual roadworthy test are
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
failing on faults that have been evident for years. For example, the lighting regulations state that if a vehicle is fitted with two rear foglights they must be identical, and must be fitted between 250rrim and lm from the ground. This is not usually a problem as the light frtments are provided byte vehicle manufacturer—the problem arises when these light fittings are moved to accommodate the tipper rifting body, frame and hydraulics.
This problem became evident when the Ministry test station at Purfleet examined a Scania eight-wheeled vehicle for its annual vehicle test. This vehicle was M-reg, so it was not its first annual test. The vehicle was duly examined, and to the operator's surprise it failed on the position of the rear foglights. A few weeks earlier there was a similar incident when the client submitted four Leyland Daf vehicles, all sequential numbers for the annual test; again at the Purfieet centre. Three of the vehicles passed the inspection, but one failed due to the positioning of the rear foglights.
On this occasion the operator addressed the problem with the Leyland Daf main dealer and it seems they have been trying to communicate with the Vehicle Inspectorate but without success. As a result of the recent test failures we contacted the Vehicle Inspectorate asking for some reasoning as to the recent decisiont and the lack of consistency with the testing station. We also made some further enquiries with our remaining tipper-based clients to ascertain if this problem had occurred elsewhere. We were able t discover that a client who operates a fleet of Volvo tippers has als had a test failure recorded against them at the Mitcham-based testing station.
Again, the reasons given for the failure was due to the positioning of the rear foglights.
We then conducted our own survey and found that the vehicle: fitted with tipper equipment have had the rear light clusters fitted between 1.1m and 1.3m. The actual heights were as follows: The only common denominator in relation to the figures was that they were all fitted with Thompson's tipper bodies. However, we have made some enquiries with some of our clients in the North-East and it would appear that although they do not have Thompson's bodies they have a similar problem with the height al the rear foglights.
We have spoken to other offices within the VI who on occasion have agreed that the lights are positioned too high and therefore are considered as a failure due to the current lighting regulations, but others have stated that this is not a test failure.
This inconsistency is a worrying factor. As a result we contacted Steve Box, customer complaints co-ordinator with the VI. His reply accepted that this matter might cause an "inconvenience to operators" and he has also apologised for the apparent inconsistencies in testing standards. This, however, no raises the probe of this problem for the operators. If, in future, th testing centres apply these particular regulations to the letter thei the potential for the majority of the tipper industry being subjectet to test failures is very real.
We would recommend to any operator that if they have had a test failure of this nature recorded against their Operator's Licence then they should write to the Traffic Commissioner's office for their area and ask that the reasons be placed on their file.