AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sideguard concern

8th May 1982, Page 5
8th May 1982
Page 5
Page 5, 8th May 1982 — Sideguard concern
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

RIOUS problems are envisaged n over the sideguard legislation sr. GRAHAM MONTGOMERIE re At a meeting between erators, manufacturers and Department of Transport VI, May 1), it was suggested at sideguards should be )ked at for specific vehicles her than having "blanket co..age with a list of exempns" as is the case at the moInt.

'articular concern was exmsed over the installation of eguards on mixers, frameless 'kers, brewery vehicles with e containers for carbon dioxbottles, and skeletal trailers. rhe sideguard will be required Nithstand, without permanent formation, a force of 10kN lout one ton) over a flat area 400sqcm (61sqin).

kccording to Keith Buckby of rk Trailers, a mild steel Jcture to meet this requireInt on a standard tandem axle : trailer will add 240kg (530Ib) he unladen weight.

Irian Veale of BP has sugAed that it would be prefers to have a tight weight deforble guard, which would be llaceable, rather than have a Ply rigid structure.

:rane Fruehauf echoed this w and would prefer to see iimum deformation requirents under a given load, as is case with rear under-run :npers.

he FTA has also expressed Icern that the proposed legison will also encompass most .7tive units, as side guards will required for any vehicle ere "the distance between r two consecutive axles exids 3m (9ft 10in)."

-erry Goldrick, FTA's director engineering services, sug;tad that incorporating the rered sideguard was unnecesy on tractive units because comparatively short chassis -no space was usually filled h fuel and air tanks.

■ ccording to Denis Broom of Society of Motor Manufacars and Traders, the "regulais as drafted at present are a age-hammer to crack a cornatively small nut".

he operators and manufac3rs have asked the Depart by the Freight Transport Associadue to take effect from later this ports.

ment of Transport to amend the strength requirement and clarify the position concerning the responsibility of fitting side guards.

It was argued that manufacturers could not fit the guards because of lack of information on what body was likely to be fitted, while at the other end of the scale it was suggested that warranty problems with the chassis could arise because of the side guard being mounted unsatisfactorily by an operator or bodybuilder.

The proposed sideguard legislation will apply to all vehicles with maximum gross weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes manufactured on or after October 1, 1983 and first used on or after April 1, 1984 and to all trailers with an unladen weight exceeding 1020kg (about one ton) manufactured on or after April 1,1983.


comments powered by Disqus