AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Golding hit on heavies

18th June 1987, Page 18
18th June 1987
Page 18
Page 18, 18th June 1987 — Golding hit on heavies
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?

• Middlesbrough-based John Golding Heavy Haulage has been fined £680 after Teeside magistrates decided that three huge aluminium silos could be carried on vehicles complying with the Construction and Use Regulations.

The magistrates convicted the company of four offences of using a vehicle with no ministry plate, three offences of using a vehicle without a test certificate and two offences of using a vehicle without the unladen weight mark, but they cleared it of one offence of using a vehicle without a ministry plate, one of using it without a test certificate and one of using a vehicle exceeding 2.5 metres wide.

Inspector Robert Tuck of the North Yorkshire Police said three vehicles carrying silos had been stopped at 18.40 hours on 28 April and were held overnight before being weighed the following morning when it was found that the silos weighed 3.5 tonnes.

While the police had been notified of the movement, no notification had been given to the highway authority of the total weight, which, in each case was less than 38 tonnes.

He took the view that the silo could have been carried by conventional vehicles under the Construction and Use Regulation limits. He agreed that the height of the silos had not been measured because it had not been possible to do so.

Defending, Michel Paterson said two of the three trailers had been specially constructed for the carriage of three silos which were "huge". Two of the trailers came within the length and width limitations of the Construction and Use Regulations and one did not.

He argued that the silos were abnormal and indivisible loads because of their huge bulk, and that the movements were therefore entitled to the exemptions provided by the Special Types provisions.

The magistrates fined the company 240 on each of the 12 offences and ordered it to pay prosecution costs of £200.