12/04/2026
The images here may appear similar to watching paint dry in many people’s eyes , but then there are those of us who would find the exercise that took place extremely interesting and certainly thought provoking.
Whizz back in time to February 2025 and then search for a document that was raised by the powers to be regarding the operation of heavy recovery vehicles within the uk.
Basically, legislation regarding this subject could be described as archaic at best.
Since it’s last revamp or update, things in this industry have changed massively.
Commercial/ heavy goods vehicles designs have altered… weights, axle positions, vehicle structure etc etc , very little bears resemblance to what was when the “old” regulations were drafted.
Expectations of the recovery industry have also changed.
Busier roads, smart motorways, complex vehicles that can no longer be repaired roadside, health and safety implications etc . You choose any element of the industry and the changes scream out at you.
So, all these changes have taken place, yet the regulations and guidelines are still based upon times that are now, in truth, confined to history.
A small number of “ keen” enforcement officers took a particular interest in the subject of vehicles operating within what is known as STGO (special types general order).
To those unaware, these are heavy vehicles that do not/ can not operate in the same manner as the regular heavy goods vehicle.
Many Low loaders carrying large plant/ machinery etc fall readily into one of the three main categories .
Weight, dimensions and other “outside the box “ peculiarities force them apart from the norm.
Then there’s heavy breakdown vehicles.
Probably one of the most difficult groups to shoehorn into any box.
Commercial vehicle manufacturers design vehicles to carry a load upon their back as such, considerations are made to ensure that weight of whatever they are carrying is carefully shared in planned amounts across all axles.
The front generally carries less than the rear, but it should always be shared proportionally between them all.
Heavy vehicle Manufactures also design their products to carry out their duties on a regular basis… the fact that they fail or breakdown on occasions is conveniently ignored. Axles are often difficult to reach, panel work is in the way, insufficient towing points etc etc… the list of problems that arise for the recovery operator is without any form of ending!
It stands to reason that the failed vehicle has to be removed and taken to a place where repairs can take place. although the industry does its best to provide assistance on the spot, this option is not always available.
I must add that as vehicle designs, customer expectations, cumbersome regulations etc progress, the amount of roadside or on site repairs have been gradually giving way to the idea of towing everything away. Ironically, being as old as I now am and having seen so many changes, I feel that the “unable to or can’t fix on scene “ ideology that has grown dramatically over the recent years is often a backward step. We ( the industry and society ), do seem to have lost our way somewhat in this area in my opinion.
As a reaction to demand, the vehicle recovery and repair industry has had to find ways to address this issue .
I mentioned above that less is now repaired where it fails and more is recovered etc.
when much of the legislation that governs the vehicle recovery sector was created, casualty vehicles were generally operating at a lower gross vehicle weight, suspension and frame work etc were more accessible for towing and in fairness, much was towed on a straight bar or pole.
If a vehicle was lifted at either end, it would be connected to the recovery vehicle via a very short “A” frame. This method was only possible on the dated vehicle designs that existed back in those days. You simply cannot use this technique on the products available today.
The A frame was short and the vehicles were lighter… ( or you would tow the casualty on a bar). One does not need a degree in science or physics to identify the fact that the less load placed upon a shorter lever will reduce the effects further down the line.
We are now approaching the stage where the story begins to take shape!
To move stricken heavy vehicles by partially lifting is now considered the most effective method. When the recovery vehicle lifts either end of this casualty, weight is transferred from the casualty, directly onto an arm ( protruding from the rear of the recovery vehicle),that has had to extend a considerable distance to find a place strong enough to attach the two vehicles.
Once the casualty is lifted, the load it represents is bearing down heavily on one end of what could be better described as a “see saw “. The rear axles of the recovery vehicle are now the pivotal component, the length / weight of the recovery vehicle being the other end of our see saw.
One must remember that recovery vehicles are only adapted goods vehicles… several paragraphs back, I stated that manufacturers design heavy vehicles to carry a load in a shared manner, some front, some rear etc. The needs of this industry fly in the face of any vehicle design, requiring massive loads to be placed several feet behind the last axle that contacts the ground. It really isn’t a nice thing to do to any vehicle!
To counteract the effects of the considerable loads placed on the arm ( under lift), you must ensure that you have sufficient weight at the opposite end of the see saw. Adding ballast or heavy weights at the front is one option. Extended or long wheelbase is the only other alternative. They both work, both have the same effect but both will eventually shed their weight as the load over the rear increases. This leads to the elephant in the room… the weight does not vanish, it simply shifts to the pivot point of our see saw… the rear axles of the recovery vehicle in this particular application.
THIS is the big problem that everyone is trying to address.
Recovery vehicles are already heavy by nature, they have to be. They have large structures and subframes etc to support the weight they are required to lift and support. They have winches, spades, cranes and other equipment to assist them in the work that they are expected to carry out.
They are also expected to retain 40% of their first ( steering) axle weight as a minimum at all times, no matter how much you load over the rear ( the see saw again).
I also mentioned the archaic regulations that were drafted prior to the landscape of today, they are now totally outdated and not fit for purpose.
And so returning to the keen enforcement officers whose eyes lit up when they found this little gem!
The said officers began to take interest in the subject and sought more clarification. As an upshot of this, an aged document was dragged from the vaults, dusted off and circulated to the relevant authorities for clarification.
The cat was now not only out of the bag, he was whizzing all over the uk road network!
The industry was quietly aware of the impossible situation and had been forced to live with its development for years, doing its best to adapt accordingly.
Enforcement had now sharpened their knife and were ready to take this unscrupulous industry to task.
I spoke to one or two local heavy recovery operators and also contacted one of the trade bodies who represent the industry.
The result of this was the formation of a small working group attending a meeting at horseferry street in London and discussing the matter further.
It soon became evident that the authorities were unaware of the severity of the problem and had little understanding of what is essential to keep the roads clear, along with industry moving generally.
There was an element of silence from “ the other side “ as they realised that the problem document that they had dusted off was not a gem at all, it was actually a skeleton that had been placed in the cupboard or vaults years ago, and a distinct possibility that it was deliberately ignored!
Once the evidence was out in the open, enforcement had to take some kind of action. They now had a number of officers stationed up and down the country who were primed and ready to take on these cowboys. They were also aware that they had little or no alternative means of moving stricken vehicles.
A temporary solution was the announcement that enforcement would adopt a pragmatic approach to the problem. At least we could breathe again!
But the problem didn’t stop there.
Further team’s meetings took place between our small working group and the authorities. To our advantage, another major trade body for this industry also took interest and began an approach from their direction.
Much to my delight, the two main trade bodies for the industry have now joined forces over this matter, creating a strong/ united front.
The next phase has been the appointment of a team of independent consultants who will carry out a desk based assessment of the situation on behalf of the authorities. They are working on behalf of DFT/ Highways England etc and will be looking into the capability of road networks/ bridges etc when some of the heavier loads are applied.
During the meetings, it was decided that the industry should also look to present its own case in order to give a better understanding of the essential requirements. It is highly likely that these findings will run headlong into the consultants recommendations!
And so to yesterday.
We set a day aside where we would choose an extremely broad range of both recovery vehicles and casualties. Axle weights of all vehicles involved and at their various stages of load would be collated.
We had to be able to demonstrate that there is no machinery currently available that can actually fit in with the requirements of present legislation.
The casualty vehicles were of the nature that would be any job on any day. Some loaded, some not, lifted from front or rear… just like any other day in this industry.
Some lovely iron arrived at Flimwell, all of them waiting to be loaded in “ real life “ situations and then the relevant axle weights recorded carefully.
Two, three, four and five axles were all tested in various configurations.
There were some surprises amongst the test results, but one thing became perfectly clear and that was that to continue moving casualty vehicles, considerably more scope than is currently available to us is essential.
The legislation as it now stands is totally unworkable. When read carefully, it is soon apparent that it is wholly out dated and in many cases it is an impossible task to avoid falling foul of .
Greater margins, a better understanding of the options ( or lack of in some cases), and possibly an acceptance that whatever is happening currently ( and has been the same for decades), is obviously working without any known problems would all be elements for consideration.
The outcome will be interesting to say the least.
It would have been easier to just ignore the whole situation and simply carry on regardless, but the knowledge that the future of the industry is currently being reshaped without what appears to be any representation from those at the coal face would be a disaster in my opinion.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to those who attended and also gave fantastic input yesterday…
Toad towing
A long recovery
Southern recovery
NYR
Nation wide vehicle assistance
Prof( professional recovery)
Avro
Boniface engineering
The drivers, owners, organisations and the companies who were kind enough to allow/ loan their vehicles as test weights. An interesting and enjoyable day.😊
