No, not all pickups are required to display ‘wide load’ sign

Dear Baraza JM,

Thank you for the good job you are doing.

My question to you is in regard to the ‘Wide Load’ sign we have been seeing on pickup trucks. I took my pickup (Hilux FYI, is tough as nails) for the annual inspection last week and as I was waiting for the inspection report, I engaged the NTSA officer (one Mr Korir, a very cordial, professional and friendly man) on this matter.

His input? As per the Kenya Traffic law Cap 403:

1. Only pickups escorting cargo that is abnormally large need to have a ‘Wide Load’ sign.

2. Only the minister (or ministry) of Transport can issue the licence for abnormal loads, which is for a specific road(s) route and time period unlike the one-year licence issued by KeNHA.

3. Pickups as cargo-carrying vehicles are allowed to load cargo length exceeding a maximum of 60 per cent of their wheel base length as per the Act. His estimate was that cargo protruding up to 2.5’ at the back is legal as long as it has warning signs at the back. Cargo loads not over 2.5’ above the vehicle cabin and on top of the cabin as long as they are not obstructing the windscreen are also legal.

4. Pickups are not allowed to load cargo protruding on either the side to ensure side mirrors have good view. It is illegal to exceed 15cm.

5. Having a KeNHA license in your pickup does not permit you to load beyond the threshold of 60 per cent wheel base and 15cm on the side. It is illegal.

6. As a disclaimer, trucks ferrying lighter, bulkier loads, for instance mattresses, are allowed to have bodies built wider/longer but not beyond the threshold above. They require a permit from the Transport ministry to have longer, wider bodies to pass annual inspection.

His opinion is that the current misunderstanding has seen pickups loaded illegally beyond their threshold just because they have a ‘KeNHA licence’ and this poses a serious risk to other road users. He opines that you are still liable for arrest and prosecution if you exceed this threshold, regardless of the KeNHA licence. Furthermore, KeNHA is just one road agency. There are other road agencies (Kura, Kerra) and not all roads are under KeNHA jurisdiction, thus its licence cannot be used as a blanket permit to overload.

As pickup owners, we have seen harassment by police just because we do not have ‘KeNHA licences’ to carry loads even when these loads are within the threshold defined in Cap 403. We are forced to pay for the KeNHA licence to avoid this, while this does not really give us any additional benefits if the NTSA officer was right.

Could this be another incident such as the ‘window tint’, ‘fire extinguisher for private motorists’ and others that saw police illegally harass motorists on misinterpreted law statutes?

On behalf of the pickup owners’ segment of your fans, I humbly request you to discuss this issue.

Kind regards.

Henry.

Hi Henry,

This is very interesting and right off the bat, I’ll agree with you that yes, it does reek of another day at the extortionist’s office, though the examples you cite were not so much avenues of random shakedowns as they were genuine statutes that were selectively applied (Some are more equal than others).

I like your NTSA friend’s interpretation of the Wide Load laws though what he describes is more of Abnormal Cargo than what I’d refer to as ‘ordinary’ wide loads in points 1 and 2.

(We may differ slightly on terminologies and descriptions, so to be safe, go with what the civil servant says and not the motoring writer who does not drive a pickup unless on a road test).

As for point 3 … Well, I’d say that puts the cargo size more at the mercy of vehicle design ahead of the B pillar than it does the actual carrying capacity of said vehicle. We have, on the one hand, vehicles with the front axle far ahead of the passenger compartment and most pickups fall into this category, usually typified by a long bonnet, followed by the passenger compartment followed by the bed whose length varies according to what the manufacturer intended the vehicle to be used for. It may have a long wheelbase, but a large part of that wheelbase is swallowed by the passenger compartment and the bonnet. A pickup I reviewed some years ago, called the Great Wall Wingle, comes to mind.

Then we have some utility-biased designs such as the Mahindra Genio or Toyota Dyna, the old Toyota Liteace or even any number of bread-vans with stubby, bonnet-less heads. They are, for all intents and purposes, cab-over forward control designs with the front axle either beneath the driver or behind him. The wheelbase length may be the same as the vehicle in the preceding paragraph, but this second type of design allows for a much longer bed, meaning that for such, the 60 per cent wheelbase allowance does not extend much beyond the bodywork and may lead to under-use of the vehicle — a waste in business terms.

It makes more sense to limit the Wide Load parameters to how far the load extends beyond the confines of the vehicle, rather than peg it on the dimensions of the wheelbase as I’ve outlined above.

I know in general regulations, both local and global prevent the making of vehicles with overhang lengths exceeding 60 per cent of the wheelbase lengths, but this does not necessarily have an effect on the load capacity because we may have engineers such as the ones behind recent bus models at Scania (F270 HB and F310 HB) and MAN (HB4) who explore the outer limits of overhang lengths both fore and aft, unlike other bus models but still stay within the 12.5-meter limit for maximum length of a rigid vehicle; and they still ferry the same number of passengers as the buses with shorter overhangs. The maximum overhang and minimum wheelbase in the Scania and MAN buses optimises manoeuvrability since these buses hail from Europe and are sold there as well as in Africa and South America where roads tend to be narrow, tight and sometimes non-existent. You need a vehicle that can rotate on a dime and a short wheelbase greatly assists with that.

The other details seem sensible enough: 2.5 inches extension beyond the bodywork is just about as much as you’d want to go before you become a risk to other road users or the infrastructure itself.

4. Pickups may not be allowed wide loads because of the mirrors, but other countries allow use of mirror extensions to circumvent this difficulty. Why can’t we? In fact mirror extensions are compulsory in the US if the load you are toting in your pickup stretches beyond the bodywork even by the tiniest bit.

(In other pedantic news, 15cm is six inches. The limit in point 3 above is 2.5 inches. What of the grey area in between? However, as I’ve already pointed out, abnormally oversized cargo turns the carrier into a road hazard, so maybe we stick to the stipulations and if you have large cargo, then just use a large vehicle. Keeps life simple).

5. Having the KeNHA licence is easily misconstrued as carte blanche to overload your vehicle since it seems like the prevailing logic is the lack thereof precludes you from even using your pickup. This is not the case, and the preceding four points seem clear enough on what can and cannot be toted on a commercial vehicle. Additionally, Wide Load signs must be in white lettering at least 25cm high, against a red background (this is according to a Nairobi News report; I usually see the opposite in practice).

That said, both KeNHA (via Charles Njogu, Assistant Director Communications) and the Kenya Police Service (via Twitter) clarified what the requirements are for the Wide Load signs: they are not a must, unless the vehicle is transporting a wide load as specified in the Traffic Act Cap 403 as you laid it out. Of course there was uproar: not against the clarification itself, but against the fact that it took four long months (February to June) of innocent businessmen being fleeced for the clarification to finally come.

So the next time a policeman on the road bullies you over Wide Load signage on an unladen/normally laden vehicle, ask him to have a word with Mr Njogu. Or maybe not; policemen are not known for their tolerance of wisecracking smart alecs. Just explain calmly what the law says and if they want to escalate the issue, ask them to write you a charge sheet and provide their force number for further recourse.

Which BMW do you recommend?

Hi Baraza,

I am a regular reader of your informative and enlightening pieces on motoring. My first car was a 316, then a 520i, both old school 2001 to 2002 models. I intend to buy a 3 series e46, though I prefer the earlier models to the current ones that have a lot of gizmos and prone to lots of electric failures, I’m torn between e46 and e39.

I seek your advice on the same.

regards,

Patrick

Hello Patrick,

Well, you seem to have enough wherewithal to get either an E39 or an E46 and you know the drill: when you’re walking on thin ice, you might as well tap dance. Buying an old BMW is like a single girl grocery-shopping: get the longest, greenest cucumber you can find and run with it. You only live once.

This is not just some obtuse, nasty joke from an auto journo trying to be funny, think about it. The E39 5 Series is one of BMW’s finest design moments, and you can only have it one colour: British Racing Green, with a tan interior and BBS alloy rims at the very least or if you can source a set of Style 65 ten-spokes (or are they 20?) that adorned the M5 of that era, even better; though these work best with a subtle body kit. Any other colour doesn’t do the E39 enough justice.

There is only one reason to buy an old BMW and that is summed up by the word “classic”. The E46 is not a classic, there are too many of them around in various states of disrepair. Sure, the E46 is pretty, but who wants a small BMW? With its softened up controls coming on the tails of the harder, edgier E36 it’s not exactly the Ultimate Driving Machine that the blurb promised. You will look like you arrived late to the BMW party and cannot catch up.

The E39? The E39 is Goldilocks’ dream car: it is just right*. The E39 has presence. It’s larger than the E46, but not as large as an E38 7 Series, which may either prove intractable at inopportune moments if you don’t live in a ranch or somewhere of ranch-like dimensions; and the 7 may possess just enough ostentation to make looks of mild, appreciative envy transform into looks of hostile suspicion about the owner’s involvement in the sale and distribution of narcotics.

Speaking of looks, the E39 looks and feels like old money, especially in British Racing Green and with a tan interior; and this is the whole point of owning a classic: to make you look like you had immensely successful grandparents and have no idea about such plebeian wastes of brain-cell half-life on matters as mundane as “rent” or as unnecessary as “loan repayments”. You give loans, you don’t take them. Image is everything. Obey your thirst for a classic and do it properly.

Perhaps this may be a good time to mention that I do have a BMW E34 — the predecessor of the E39 you so definitely need in your life — in 525i guise that I’m trying to get registered for the upcoming Concours D’Eelgance; and yes it is British Racing Green … with a tan interior … and BBS alloys.

Join me.

[Note*: Of course the E39 isn’t “just right”, it comes in several other colours that do not carry as much gravitas as British Racing Green with a tan interior and BBS alloys; but even worse, the E39 came with an electronic throttle that can prove troublesome 20-odd-plus-change years after the car first went into production. Do not forget it is a German car at the end of the day. My E34 has a cable-operated throttle so I will not suffer any such problems].