¡®Big companies abused overload tolerance¡¯

I refer to the article on the RFA¡¯s stance on changes to overloading tolerance (FTW September 1, 2006). The facts are as follows:- ¡ñ South Africa has one of the highest payload limits in the world. ¡ñ The legal mass limit on a superlink is 56 tons, however 5% was allowed as a ¡°margin of error¡± ¨C before prosecution. ¡ñ It was NEVER the intention to change the limit to 58.8 tons as it was accepted on trust that transporters would not abuse this special dispensation i.e. it was a matter of good will in the true spirit of being fair. Unfortunately, this was abused by the big companies in order to milk this arrangement to the maximum, using this special dispensation ¨C margin of error ¨C in a manner counter to its intentions. As all vehicle licences are based on mass, this effectively means that by fitting on-board weighing equipment purely to use this ¡°loop-hole¡± in order to maximise profits at the expense of the roads, they would pay the same licence fees as a more responsible transporter yet be able to transport 2.8 tons more than him ¨C per load! On board weighing equipment is very expensive to fit ¨C costing many tens of thousands per vehicle. Does the RFA want us to believe this was done in the interests of road safety and not to maximise a perceived ¡° loophole¡±? Now they cry foul when it is reduced from 5% to 2%. These are the same role-players saying they want LAP - a load accreditation programme ¨C based on a transporter being recognised as always running legal and because of this being granted special dispensations by the state. Trust and goodwill have to be earned ¨C and on the above matter you have not exactly covered yourselves in glory. I suggest a serious re-think in your fight ¨C pick the ones that will really make a difference, because on this one I¡¯m afraid, in this writer¡¯s opinion, the state has the moral high ground. Kevin Martin, chief: planning & control, Freightliner Transport, Durban.