50 fine for psk's insuitable load'
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A platform-skeletal trailer was not a ble vehicle on which to transport large of paper, Sandbach magistrates ed on Tuesday, fining Stotts Haulage of Runcorn, which denied the offence, for operating a vehicle which was table for its load.
ir the prosecution it was said that the ;e was made after the vehicle operated totts was involved in an accident in Ieschapel on June 2 1972. The court that the driver of the vehicle was Idled to execute an emergency stop at id junction when a moped, which had hidden by another vehicle, suddenly out in front of him. As the driver xl the 10 reels on the trailer, weighing a of 164 tons, broke loose. One hit the r's headboard which apparently broke rid, in all, three reels mished on to the ving evidence, the driver, Mr C. ns, said that the trailer was a type h was fitted with a detachable hoard to facilitate the carriage of .al goods or, when the headboard had removed, containers. The usual :dure for securing reels of this nature .o lash down the first and last reel with Manilla rope and to place wooden • hes behind each reel and a beam h behind the last reel. Asked as a professional driver if he felt the method of securing the reels was satisfactory, Mr Adams replied.: "I have been driving artics for 20 years, many of them carrying this type of load, I have never experienced an incident like this before but will still be prepared to take out a similar vehicle with the same load and the same , securing methods in the future."
Mr W. A. Shillcock, managing director of Stotts Haulage, said that after the accident it was found that the welding on the bolts which held on the headboard had been bolted and two of the four bolts had Snapped, Since the accident the headboards on all six trailers of this type used by the company had been welded on to form a permanent fixture.
Defending, Mr John Backhouse, referred to an article in CM on May 26, which carried pictures of a vehicle on which a load of concrete blocks had slipped, and added that at the time of the Holmeschapel incident there was no code of practice or regulations which governed the necessary strength and resistance which trailer headboards should possess.
In his view, the company's offence was most probably that of operating a vehicle with an insecure load and not that with which it had been charged.