---

Past Issues

July 2005

---

According to the CSIR, it is estimated that repairs to our national roads as a result of damage caused by overloaded trucks costs the tax payer some R750 million per annum. This is far from small change and it's no wonder traffic authorities are getting increasingly adept at recognising and halting overloaded vehicles. According to weigh-in-motion (WIM) studies, around 25% of all trucks on South Africa's roads are overloaded! From an operator's perspective, is overloading really worthwhile considering the potential losses due to fines, delays at weighbridges, auxiliary trucks needing to be deployed to help carry the excess load, not to mention wasted man-hours spent in court? Paul Collings takes a look at the issue.

WEIGHBRIDGES ON major routes and tighter law enforcement on provincial roads have curbed gross overloading dramatically

Probably the biggest stigma attached to the road transport industry is the issue of overloading. The last few years, however, have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of trucks exceeding the 5% tolerance limit. This clearly shows that truckers are striving to load legally. The flipside of this trend is that more trucks are being pulled up for axle mass overloading. While being within the gross vehicle mass limit, (poor) loading techniques and loading circumstances have rendered one or more axle units illegal in terms of mass regulations.

The N3 between Gauteng and Durban is the busiest truck route in the country and the KZN Department of Transport, in conjunction with CSIR Transportek and the KZN Road Traffic Inspectorate (RTI), publishes an annual 'overload control' report that identifies not only trends in overloaded vehicles but who the culprits are.

Speaking to some of the companies listed in the report enlightens one as to the problems surrounding the question of overloading. The primary objective for transport operators is a simple one - to get as full a load as possible without going beyond the legal limits and making sure axle groups do not exceed the legal mass limits. Judging by the report, there are many people out there who do not know how (or wish to) comply with the law. The report lists frequent axle unit overloaders as well as itinerant gross overloaders.
 

The trends
The annual report is comprehensive and pinpoints how the road transport fraternity has changed with regards to load mass in 2004 as opposed to the previous year. Firstly, it states that: "there was an increase of 12% in the number of heavy vehicles passing the weighbridge facilities from 2003 to 2004. In addition, the number of overloaded heavy vehicles passing these facilities increased by an average of 28% during the same period. There has also been an increase in the average extent of overloading on the N3 corridor from approximately 15% in 2003 to 17% in 2004."

In a nutshell, this means there are more trucks using the N3 and a greater percentage of them were overloaded than measured in 2003.

Another cause for concern are the statistics gathered from Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) surveys conducted along KZN's provincial (some of them alternative to toll ) routes, which show an increasing number of heavy trucks using these roads, probably to avoid toll fees and weighbridges on the national routes.

The report states that: "There has been a marginal reversal in the trend (from less to more) in terms of the degree of overloading in the province. Since 2002, there have been increases in the average overloads of single axles (4 tyres), tandems and tridems by 16%, 5% and 2% respectively."

On the up side, it is reported that while there has been a sharp increase in the number of marginally overloaded vehicles (0 to 2 tons), there has been "a general decrease in the percentage of overloaded vehicles that are moderately or severely overloaded (more than 3 tons)."

Tolerance levels
The 5% grace on GVM given to heavy truck transporters has been a contentious issue for some time. Initially given as a leeway to allow for incorrectly calibrated/assized weighbridges, it has now become the norm for operators to use it for payload without being charged for overloading - even though it puts such operators into the overloading bracket.

The report states that prior to 1990, less than 10% of recorded overloaded vehicles registered masses within the 5% grace limit or less, meaning that at least 90% of overloaded vehicles were either moderately or grossly overloaded. During 2004, however, 76% of the overloaded vehicles recorded fell within the 5% grace limit, meaning only 24% of overloaded trucks fell into the moderate or gross overloading categories. 

This is a dramatic improvement and testimony to not only the effect of the weighbridges on transporter compliance but perhaps also to the fact that loaders of cargo are getting pretty sharp at squeezing in extra payload without it becoming 'illegal'. 

The National Overload Control Technical Committee (NOCTC) is currently lobbying to have the 5% tolerance limit reduced to 2%. According to Michael Roux of the CSIR, the mooted limits will be 2% on total vehicle mass and 5% on axle groups. He adds that a subcommittee has been appointed to change prosecution guidelines. Just when this will come into effect is unclear at time of writing.

Currently, only vehicles that exceed the 5% limit on axles, axle units and overall GVM are prosecuted but this doesn't render those within the limit 'guilt-free'. They're still overloading and thus contribute to the negative perception the public hold towards this industry.

With technology available to pro-actively load legally and optimally, transporters should work at improving their efficiencies while boosting the public image of the transport industry in general.