lependable Delivery's Car Transporter Length Appeals Dismissed
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
N appeal at London Sessions last L. week against conviction by the South astern (Metropolitan) Magistrates under a 1963 Motor Vehicles (Construction
d Use) Regulations, developed into a t case on what constituted the length a road transporter vehicle.
The appellants. Dependable Delivery d., Folkestone. were fined £10 by the uth Western Magistrates on May 28 1 for using a single-deck car transporter th an overall length exceeding 30 ft. at lham, London, S.W., on February II ,t. The driver, Mr. C. R. Smitham. also pealed against conviction and a fine of s.
The deputy chairman, Mr. Henry Elam. ting with two lay magistrates. dismissed e appeals and ordered the firm to pay gns. costs.
Mr. Donald Farquharson, for the ipondents, said the transporter was conucted with a permanent car ramp tending 29 ft. 4 in, from the cab to the d of the chassis. In addition each end d detachable ramp flaps extending 3 ft. er the cab roof and 4 ft. 8 in. beyond a chassis when lowered. He submitted at at the time the transporter was ipped by the police at Balham it had flaps fully extended. It therefore eeeded the maximum permitted length • 7 ft.
The flaps could be folded back when It in use, but had to be extended to rry three cars, added Mr. Farquharson.
e invited the deputy chairman to disiguish the appeal from decisions of the divisional courts involving three cases. including Smolt v. Vipond. He quoted the latter case, when it was held that the slanting lifting gear on a double-deck car transporter to accommodate a third vehicle did not extend the construction length of the vehicle.
For my part there is no distinction between the length of construction and the length of use ", said Mr. Farquharson.
Miss Elizabeth Havers, for the appellants, claimed that the detachable flaps were not part of the original construction of the transporter. The vehicle could carry one or two cars Without using its flaps. She described them as loose components or equipment, and their use an the road as totally irrelevant under the regulations.
The transporter was weighed for Excise purposes without its flaps and registered under the same circumstances, said Miss Havers. The vehicle was originally constructed for carrying, without any extensions, one or two medium-sized cars and also three Minis.
" Therefore, this transporter is a vehicle complete in itself, able to fulfil the purpose for which it was constructed ". went on Miss Havers. The rear flaps, she added, were also necessary for loading the transporter.
Dismissing the appeals. Mr. Elam and his magistrates ruled that the flaps were part of the transporter and determined the overall length of the vehicle. It was therefore in contravention of the regulations. said Mr. Elam.