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 
New Vehicles Only' for Weight and Size Regulations, says S.M.M.T.
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
COMMERCIAL vehicle manufacturers expect the Ministry of Transport to make the revised weights and dimensions regulations applicable only to new vehicles, i.e., those designed to meet the new figures. The Commercial Motor was told this on Monday by a Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders spokesman, who revealed that this has been made clear in the Society's official comments on the proposals; these have already been sent to the Ministry, whereas the National Road Transport Federation representatives are due to put their case to the Ministry today. It had originally been expected that operators and manufacturers would make a joint approach.
The N.R.T.F. naturally wants any new regulations to apply to existing vehicles but, apart from this basic difference of view, there is no great disagreement about the actual weights and dimensions, said the S.M.M.T. official. " The operators want a little more than we are asking for; we feel that they have a better chance of making their own case if they meet the Ministry on their own." He said the S.M.M.T.'s chief objection to the proposals was that the axle spacing stipulations for 28-ton-gross rigids, apparently suggested because • of bridge weight limitations, could effectively kill the big rigid vehicle: turning circles would be quite unacceptably large. The result would be to throw maximumweight traffic onto artics, and this was not necessarily a desirable thing.
The N.R.T.F. and S.M.M.T. proposals are expected to be known in detail early next week.
Why Not 49 ft.?
Although, understandably, both bodies refuse to discuss details of their proposals at this stage, a special correspondent writes that it is known that most people feel if articulated units are to be increased to 42 ft. the Minister might just as well authorize a limit of 49 ft., which is the figure recommended by the E.E.C. and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport.
Manufacturers can be expected to press the case for low-profile single tyres, which have been developed to replace twins, but are not covered in the increased weight proposals (The Commercial Motor, February 1 and 8). Both bodies can also be expected to oppose the Minister's suggestion that increased gross tonnages be based upon stipulated axle spacings.
It may well be, too, that the S.M.M.T. will have expressed concern about the proposed 32-ton-gross five-axle artics. Since 30 tons are proposed for a fouraxle outfit, the extra 2 tons seems hardly worth an operator's time and expense; 34 or, better still, 36 tons would be more realistic.