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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
OVERLENGTH TRANSPORTER CASE FOR APPEAL
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE South Western Metropolitan magistrate, Mr. H. C. Beaumont, finding a Folkestone car transport operator guilty last week of using a vehicle which exceeded the maximum permitted length of 30 ft., criticized the wording of part of the 1963 Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations as being " not sufficiently clear ".
The operator, Dependable Delivery Ltd., was acquitted of a further charge of causing a car transporter and trailer to be used without a driver's mate being in attendance.
The hearing of the summonses had been adjourned to last week after formal evidence had been given by the police, because the magistrate wished to consider the question of the braking system of the trailer, and to allow the company, if it wished, to call further evidence on this point.
When the case was resumed, Mr. A. H. Carter, managing director of Carter Engineering Co. (Tamworth) Ltd., whose company had constructed the bodywork of the vehicle, was called as an expert witness. Mr. Carter said that provided -the trailer did not exceed one ton unladen and the brakes automatically came into operation on the overrun, a vehicle satisfied the requirements of the law. The vehicle concerned, Mr. Carter said, was fitted with a special device which automatically operated when the engine was decelerated. The trailer concerned weighed only 15-cwt. The vehicle, he continued, was fitted with quickly detachable load-carrying ramps. These were classed as loose equipment. Mr. Carter said he had designed and constructed transporters to comply with the 1962 Vehicles (Excise) Act. They did not, he continued, come under the 1963 (Construction and Use) Regulations.
Questioned by the magistrate, Mr. Carter agreed that without the extensions the vehicle was 29 ft. 4 in. long. With the extensions fitted, the length increased to 37 ft. "But"; Mr. Carter added, "the law allows you to have a 6 ft. overhang at the front and rear."
Dismissing the first summons regarding the carrying of a mate, Mr. Beaumont said that the matter was by no means free from technical difficulty, but he was satisfied that the vehicle satisfied the braking requirements in the Regulations.
Concerning overall length, Mr. Beaumont said that he did not think the drafting of the definition section in the 1963 (Construction and Use) Regulations was sufficiently clear, but he was not going to decide the case on that point. He considered that the ramp was part of the original construction. "These ramps are the construction of the vehicle and not the use of it ", he added. The magistrate found the driver of the vehicle guilty of a similar offence and fined him 10s.
An appeal is to be lodged to the Divisional Court: