‘Maximise legal payload – but not at the expense of our roads’ I REFER to the letter headlined ‘Onboard weighing devices make good commercial sense' (FTW October 6, 2006) I am in full agreement with what the writer has said i.e. fitting onboard weighing equipment in order to maximise the legal payload makes good commercial sense. What my letter complained about was those operators that fit this type of equipment in order to maximise the payload over the legal limit but under the prosecutable limit – which was not in the spirit of the dispensation. This has resulted in a reduction from the allowance of 5% to 2% by the state to halt this abuse. These are the same operators (again not ALL of them) who have requested the Road Freight Association to fight this reduction due to self interest. In order to clarify it for your average reader, who is not a transport expert, I would like to expand on the example he provided. To leave 5% payload – under the legal limit – off the vehicle would result in the transporter leaving 25% (on a 20% mark-up) of his projected profit behind. This clearly does not make commercial sense. However, by the same example – to use the equipment to OVERLOAD by 5% over the legal limit but under the prosecutable limit – he would be making an EXTRA 25% profit. This would be at the direct expense of the roads for which we as taxpayers pay through our taxes and increased maintenance (due to poor road condition) to our vehicles – truck and car alike. This backlog in road damage, due to overloading, is fast approaching the R 1 billion rand mark – wasted public funds that could, if available, be better spent. I trust now that my standpoint has been explained.I believe that we as a nation cannot afford to condone such practices. As I am a road transporter myself, I am obviously not blaming ALL road transporters for being irresponsible – just those who should know better! Kevin Martin, Freightliner, Durban.
