Dynamic duo differs
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Two similar cases, which argued that dynamic weighbridge test certificates are defective because they do not disclose the speeds at which test vehicles are driven over the weighbridges concerned, met with mixed verdicts last week before the Avon North and Daventry Magistrates.
At Daventry, Cadzow Plant Hire of Hamilton was convicted of nine offences arising out of the operation of a special types vehicle and was fined £800.
The following day, the same agrument persuaded Avon North Magistrates to dismiss charges alleging that Seafords Transport (Co Down) had exceeded the permitted train weight of a 38-tonne artic and the magistrates ordered that the company's defence costs be paid out of public funds.
Jonathan Lawton, defending Cadzow, pointed out that the Code of Practice for Dynamic Axle Weighers required that such weighbridges be tested by vehicles of three different weights, the weight having first been ascertained on a plate weighbridge. Each vehicle then had to be driven over the weighbeam nine times at varying speeds.
A Trading Standards officer, who produced the test certificates concerned, conceded that the speeds at which the vehicles had passed over the weighbridge had not been recorded on the test certificates. He maintained that it was impractical to record the speeds because the vehicles were travelling so slowly, but said that in his opinion the code of practice had statutory authority. Cadzow is to appeal against its conviction.