New Regulations Could Save This Trouble
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I ONG, abnormal and indivisible 1-4 loads are in the news again. Sunter Brothers, Ltd., of Northallerton, lost an appeal against a conviction in Newcastle upon Tyne last April when they were fined for permitting a vehicle to be overloaded by 7 tons 7 cwt. The case concerned the transportation of girder sections for the Forth Road bridge.
Sunters contended that it was safer to carry two girders than a single one. The Lord Chief Justice, however, said that quite clearly the lad was not a single entity. like a boiler, and was merely loaded on one vehicle for convenience, so that one plate would strengthen the other—the court, he added, was not entitled to consider the undue expense or risk of damage aspect. if the load was separated.
A few days later the same court dismissed a police appeal against Melton Mowbray magistrates. who had found a car transporter operator not guilty of operating a vehicle which did not comply with the Construction and Use Regulations; when the vehicle was carrying three cars on the top deck the loading appliance—a sort of. tailboard—could not. be drawn up and the vehicle was over the 35 ft. allowed.
Mr. Justice MacKenna based his finding on an earlier appeal decision which held that a pantechnicon which exceeded • the permitted length when the tailboard was slanting outwards was not infringing the regulations.
On this same point, Mr. Hanlon, the Northern L.A., refused to grant an application by H. L. Walker, Ltd., of Stockton, for two trombone-type semi-trailers which exceeded the permitted length.
It is tobe hoped that the new regulations concerning long, wide and projecting. loads, which the Minister has -promised for this month, will allow operators to carry bigger and longer loads legally, and settle some of these awkward decision-s that people have to make