AndrewG:
If it wasnt for the one sliding forward against the cab its not that bad. Theres certainly enough straps on the rear ones at least and in the right places to stop any kind of movement. If only the trailer had a headboard.
Personally I’d make sure there were old tyres at the contact points between the cars and use a few more straps but If the cars had been squashed by a compactor first no-one would be looking twice at it.
shep532:
Captain Caveman 76:
But if the calculations say something would go wrong, but nothing does, then the calculations are incorrect. You can’t base a prosecution on opinion.
.Unfortunately the calculations we speak of are proven to be correct by scientific tests and trials. They don’t say what WOULD go wrong, they show what COULD go wrong and have proven it by trial.
The science is based on the very worse case scenario - an emergency stop on nice grippy ground when the truck will generate the maximum G force or maybe a swerve - with a stab on the brakes as well, maybe with an adverse camber thrown in.
The fact the cars haven’t actually fallen off just means the wrong set of circumstances haven’t occurred yet - but could. It’s a simple risk assessment. That driver doesn’t actually know whether the cars will stay there because he hasn’t done the trials - he’s just guessing.
As Rikki-uk has pointed out the DFT code of practice could be used as evidence in court by both prosecution or defence - but I can’t see how this fella could possibly use it as defence, but I can definitly see how the prosecution would use it
I think Rikki-uk hit the nail on the head regards the extended trailer - which I hadn’t noticed - that load is definitly a divisible load so he’s being a bit naughty there.
Either way, I’m sorry but if anyone thinks anything to do with that load is in anyway OK then you are very misguided. But that’s just my opinion
Haulier near me, that shifts big quarry blocks, has been taken to court twice for unsecure loads by two different police forces. Both times they take a selection of photos showing great grandad hauling stone from the quarry with a horse and cart, then grandad with a steam engine, and so on. Then they tell the court they have never lost a load then they ask the traffic copper to list his expertise in securing stone.
The indivisible load rule seems to be essentially overlooked these days. Agricultural machinery seems to be a favourite you get combine harvesters and their bed transported on the same trailer pretty much as standard.
dri-diddly-iver:
Q. 1 How is suzies spelt/pronounced?? Suzies - Suzes ■■
The correct spelling is as follows… CURLY PIPES 
Rather see that lot in a bloody great high sided bulk tipper, you could have the cars poking over the top up to 16ft with straps over and netted to stop any loose trims etc blowing off, or even the fold over covers that bulk waste carriers use.
Would i want to go up the road like that on a flatbed with straps chaffing on crushed bent and split car bodywork.
No ta.
has that trailer been extended ? Gap in the crash rails - is that not an offence ? Indivisible load and all that …
Doesn’t the underside of each car damage the roof of the one it’s sitting on here?
How did he think he was going to get away with it?
#chancer 
Seriously, I always work off idea if it looks dodgy its not worth taking out like that, because invariably, regardless of whether something is actually wrong with the load, plod or dvsa can find something if they want to. So it’s not worth the risk.
In this case you can argue until you are blue in the face that the load is safe, or unsafe, but the fact of the matter is that load is divisible so should not be on an extended trailer.
The journey stops here, I like it!
1m – 2m rearwards projecting overhang: Render clearly visable (ie- red ribbons, high vis vest, etc) “Clearly visible within a reasonable distance to a person using the road”
the extended trailer is the only thing wrong there…apart from that,scrappys load like that day in and day out…straps on,top car locks into the bottom car…no biggie,no drama,its not a load I would take,and I wouldn’t lift a load of hay either,but that’s just my preference.apart from the extended trailer,then its just a normal scrappys load.fannies making a drama over nothing again. if your close coupled up with a fridge,theres not much more clearance at the back of the cab.
What’s wrong with the extended trailer like? Just because it’s got a gap in the crash rails? How do log trailers and sliding container trailers manage? They run zero barriers. - and if it’s because the load not being as one, the trailer has plates laid down in the gab so that’s not a issue
ajt:
What’s wrong with the extended trailer like? Just because it’s got a gap in the crash rails? How do log trailers and sliding container trailers manage? They run zero barriers. - and if it’s because the load not being as one, the trailer has plates laid down in the gab so that’s not a issue
It’s got nothing to do with gaps in the rails and having the infills, it’s to do with C&U regs which only allow trailers to be a certain length unless you’re carrying an indivisible load.
muckles:
ajt:
What’s wrong with the extended trailer like? Just because it’s got a gap in the crash rails? How do log trailers and sliding container trailers manage? They run zero barriers. - and if it’s because the load not being as one, the trailer has plates laid down in the gab so that’s not a issueIt’s got nothing to do with gaps in the rails and having the infills, it’s to do with C&U regs which only allow trailers to be a certain length unless you’re carrying an indivisible load.
correct - he has extended the trailer to fit another 3 cars on it - that is against the law . You should only be extending the trailer for a single piece of load that cannot be reduced in length . The gaps are not the problem - they were the tell tale sign that the trailer had been extended and that the law is being broken .
As beefy4065 points out,
The trailer has been extended without an indivisible load placed upon it - that’s illegal.
I suspect that whilst CMPG twitter account, credit themselves with stopping the haulier’s journey - was he prosecuted■■?
Harry Monk:
The irony is that the bloke who owns this truck has probably been running cars around in this way for 30 years without any type of incident whatsoever, yet some bloke from the DVSA knows better even though he’s never even driven a truck in his life.
Got to say, that this has hit the nail on the head.
Used to move flat trailers 3 at a time, bottom one on the road, 2 on top, and only 3 straps to hold them. Pre speed limiters, and 1 up 1 down road work, never did any of us loose any, Muckles will concur to this, as he was on for the same firm 
Now the DVSA will expect them to be lashed to within an inch of the lives, or you’d be in for the same. Total overkill 
The length issue is down to the overall length of the outfit from front bumper of unit to rear bumper of the rearmost overhanging car.
I would add the length issue is not what the police are crowing about on their twitter account, seemingly like the worst sort of social media attention seeker uploading smartphone pics.
Low loaders were exempt from side protection bars but the rules have recently changed so not certain now but would guess it still would be.
Wessex Paul:
As beefy4065 points out,
The trailer has been extended without an indivisible load placed upon it - that’s illegal.
I suspect that whilst CMPG twitter account, credit themselves with stopping the haulier’s journey - was he prosecuted■■?
I think the whole idea of them posting this stuff is potentially libellous if there is no conviction in a court to support it. They don’t even seem to often qualify it with statements like ‘in our opinion’.
dieseldog999:
the extended trailer is the only thing wrong there…apart from that,scrappys load like that day in and day out…straps on,top car locks into the bottom car…no biggie,no drama,its not a load I would take,and I wouldn’t lift a load of hay either,but that’s just my preference.apart from the extended trailer,then its just a normal scrappys load.fannies making a drama over nothing again. if your close coupled up with a fridge,theres not much more clearance at the back of the cab.
Well said
ajt:
Just because it’s got a gap in the crash rails? How do log trailers and sliding container trailers manage? They run zero barriers. -
You’ll notice a lot of sliding skellies have little side guards now, I was told by our fleet dept, that only those on the fleet with the short side guards are to taken into London, what good they are is beyond Me
Own Account Driver:
I would add the length issue is not what the police are crowing about on their twitter account, seemingly like the worst sort of social media attention seeker uploading smartphone pics.
.
I wonder if the Central Motorway Police Group are looking for more funding, and this is like some kind of propaganda aimed at the various Police and Crime Commisioners to whom they serve
Own Account Driver:
This was in the twitter commentsBen Lamps @lampsr5 May 20
@CMPG @CMPG You forgot to mention the highways traffic officers pulled this one in and handed it over gents
Since when have the Wombles had the power to take you of the road 
, because I wouldn’t have followed them of the Highway, I’m fully aware that they have the power to close a road for safety issue’s, and that you cant pass them when they are doing a rolling road block, but they’ll never take Me alive
#1 It appears, as already stated, that the trailer has been stretched for a non indivisable load, so we can all agree that`s a bust?
#2 Strapping etc: Appears to be steel on steel? As already said that should have tyres? or timber? or summat to stop sliding. That counts doubly, as seems likely there is old oil, brake fluid etc hanging around these cars? Where the cars are stacked it seems likely that the lower ones will deform and settle so the straps will slacken during transit. Re the front stack: appears that the straps were simply put over the top of the top car, so it`d be easy for the lower car to be “squeezed out”.
I for one wouldn`t take that load down the road like that.
These were on ridgeds but not much difference in load type.
As I mentioned earlier in the post, these are an example of what we did day in day out.
All pictures were taken of the loads on days when pulled over by police or vosa. On every occasion I was allowed to continue on my way.
As long as everything is secure and you’re not over weight there shouldn’t be a problem.
beefy4605:
muckles:
ajt:
What’s wrong with the extended trailer like? Just because it’s got a gap in the crash rails? How do log trailers and sliding container trailers manage? They run zero barriers. - and if it’s because the load not being as one, the trailer has plates laid down in the gab so that’s not a issueIt’s got nothing to do with gaps in the rails and having the infills, it’s to do with C&U regs which only allow trailers to be a certain length unless you’re carrying an indivisible load.
correct - he has extended the trailer to fit another 3 cars on it - that is against the law . You should only be extending the trailer for a single piece of load that cannot be reduced in length . The gaps are not the problem - they were the tell tale sign that the trailer had been extended and that the law is being broken .
I thought with him infilling the gap it makes it one rigid trailer thus not making it technically extended if you see what i mean.
So when you see low loaders hauling agricultural equipment, if there is any gap for example when hauling tractors, this makes it illegal ?