Isn’t it odd that such anomalies still exist in these H & S concsious times?
not really… it been going on since MOT’s were introduced… if a vehicle is not covered by Construction and use legislation then it doesnt need an MOT
so next time a 400 tonne transformer goes past your house those 3 STGO cat 3 ballast tractor units and the huge girder set trailer have never been ministry checked…
Another small interesting point… that those huge loads also dont need wide load marker boards , as marking of loads only applies to vehicles and trailers that can work under C&U regs… although if some one hits one I doubt if the claim would go very far… "Judge I hit that 15 foot wide, 20 foot high, 240 foot long combination, 400 tonne load on a girder set , escorted by two police cars and two abnormal load ■■■■■■ vans, because they didnt have a 18inchx18 inch triangular marker board on it !! "
Will MOT’s stop this happening again? I doubt it. The driver stated that he didn’t check oil levels regularly and that they were checked when there was time.
Vehicles can be run without any maintenance being done and just have work done to get through an MOT.
Many drivers are too bone idle to check the engine oil level when it only involves pressing a button on the dashboard.
Another point, would VOSA stop one of these vehicles whilst it is carrying a load?
another funny one is vehicles that can lift a disabled vehicle for recovery, so garages out on the motorway recovering mum dad and the 4 kids don’t require an m.o.t nore do the trucks picking up your truck thats broken down. but if the vehicle is put on the back of the recovery vehicle then it requires an m.o.t just another strange one 
Terrible thing to happen, but like others I’m dubious as to whether an MOT test would have helped.
Imagine the fun if one of these monsters from Ainscough’s tried to get into the inspection bay at a testing station. 
Those things are an absolute mass of hydraulics, even the little 'uns, and a pipe can go any time as anyone who’s done tippers or HIABs can testify.
waddy640:
Another point, would VOSA stop one of these vehicles whilst it is carrying a load?
A mate of mine runs three low loaders, he runs a tight ship with all the kit in tip top condition. They are all more or less the same trucks and trailers but one is run under STGO but he still MOT’s it, and despite this guess which one VOSA tug all the time
wildfire:
another funny one is vehicles that can lift a disabled vehicle for recovery, so garages out on the motorway recovering mum dad and the 4 kids don’t require an m.o.t nore do the trucks picking up your truck thats broken down. but if the vehicle is put on the back of the recovery vehicle then it requires an m.o.t just another strange one
True, but any professional recovery company will test their vehicles anyway, or a ‘roadwortiness’ test at the very least. In fact, most if not all police contracts state the vehicles on the scheme must have an MoT or Roadworthiness certificate.
Already in the recovery industry the majority of ops test their wreckers when there is no requirement to do so.
The folk who don’t test them are the folk who know they would fail due to other reasons 
The problem for an underlift is the brake test - take one in empty and there’s not enough weight over the back bogie, wheels lock out too quick. Take one in loaded, with a truck on the hook, and the front axle is unloaded (too light), front brakes lock out too quick. That said, there’s no reason why they can’t have a roadworthiness test (we test all of ours).
With a flatbed as you mention, you can put the load on the bed and it be distributed across all the axles, same as any other flatbed, so the brake test is no problem.
As an aside, most of these test exemptions are being done away with, I’ll see if I can find the consultation paper.
EDIT: Found it webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. … tation.pdf
i wonder if the vosa, could do someing like they do for class 7 mot test’s. class 7 test is 3000-3500kg good’s vehicle i.e. transit van.
i’m a class 7 tester, and what happen’s is, it got to meet 50% brake efficency, if laden, so a ford transit 3.5 tonner would have to on the barke roller’s have a mininum of 1750kg of braking force, or a mininum of 75% of wheels locking
(3 wheels on a 2 axle vehicle, 5 wheels on a 3 axle vehicle).
but when we get an empty class 7 transit revovery truck,the front wheel’s must lock out (stop the rollers) and the rear wheel’s must exceed 100 kg for it to pass the brake test.
if they could alter the brake force required for recovery truck’s it would help remove some of the back street recovery operators…
Cranes also run on red and dont have tachos.
philgor:
but when we get an empty class 7 transit revovery truck,the front wheel’s must lock out (stop the rollers) and the rear wheel’s must exceed 100 kg for it to pass the brake test.
100kgs on the back axle, that’s madness!
When a speclift is loaded, all the weight is behind the back axle, which )through a see-saw effect) unloads the front axle.
It’s quite common for the front wheels to lock up whilst braking at low speed in the wet, and the reason underlifts are ballasted up to make their front axles run at their maximum weight.
So, say that rear axle can only pull 100kgs force, and the front brakes are next to useless loaded, where is the brake effort coming from?
If anything, it should be the other way around, rear wheels should lock out and fronts make 100kgs!
Do class 7 test lane rollers weight the axles off, as commercial rollers do?
If so, surely a Transit speclift should be tested ‘as presented’, going off the actual unladen axle weights?
daleyboy:
Cranes also run on red and dont have tachos.
Do they now require the driver to be HGV/LGV licenced? 'cos I’m sure they didn’t
Yes, HGV license required.
Run on red as they’re classed as plant, and work on a logbook rather than tacho as the majority of their time is spent sat on site.
This is a tragic accident indeed, But im not sure that an MOT would have prevented this as i dont belive the MOT would even look at all the hydraulics on the boom of the crane etc, also lines can go at any time so if it was MOTd the lines could still fail, not trying to put blame on anyone but i would have though that the car driver is as much at fault as anyone, he failed to correctly negociate a hazzard, although it doesnt say how long the oil had been there proir to them having the accident but i have always managed to spot patches of oil on the road and adjust speed accordingly
no i don’t think it would fail on a damaged hose for the hydrolics. but any tester worth his/her salt, and with a conscience at all would at least bring it to attation of the presenter and pass and advise it. if i see somthing i don’t like on a vehicle i’m testing,and it can’t be failed on it. it will be brought to the attation of the presenter of the vehicle, and it will be passed and advised on it.
philgor:
no i don’t think it would fail on a damaged hose for the hydrolics. but any tester worth his/her salt, and with a conscience at all would at least bring it to attation of the presenter and pass and advise it. if i see somthing i don’t like on a vehicle i’m testing,and it can’t be failed on it. it will be brought to the attation of the presenter of the vehicle, and it will be passed and advised on it.
I can understand that but surely they companys own fitters would be looking over the crane regulally?
Do cranes have to hace 8 weekly checks?
AHT:
I can understand that but surely they companys own fitters would be looking over the crane regulally?
Do cranes have to hace 8 weekly checks?
8 Weekly more like 4 weekly.
Yes they adhere to a strict maintainance schedule, but even then, we’ve had brand new hoses fail.
We’re making the assunption the hose that failed in this case was old, had worn through and could have been seen to be failing.
Maybe it wasn’t.