Load securing: the forces the rules assume and the standards behind them

A load that has not moved is not the same thing as a load that is secured. The roadside inspector does not assess the journey that has just finished; he assesses whether the restraint would hold in the one that has not happened yet. Union law supplies three figures that test may be run against — a yardstick a member state may use, in a directive that describes itself as setting minimum requirements.

The three numbers in Annex III

Directive 2014/47/EU governs technical roadside inspection of commercial vehicles. It is in force in the consolidated version of 27 September 2022, and it repealed the earlier Directive 2000/30/EC. Article 2(1) fixes what it reaches, among vehicles with a design speed exceeding 25 km/h: M2 and M3 passenger vehicles, N2 and N3 goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, O3 and O4 trailers over 3.5 tonnes, and certain wheeled tractors used mainly on public roads for commercial road haulage with a maximum design speed exceeding 40 km/h. Article 2(2) leaves member states free to inspect vehicles the directive does not cover, such as light commercial vehicles of category N1 having a maximum mass not exceeding 3,5 tonnes. For a van or a small trailer, what follows is therefore a matter for national law. Article 1 describes the whole instrument as establishing minimum requirements for a regime of technical roadside inspections.

Annex III opens with the principles of cargo securing, and the first is the figure to memorise. It is reached by permission rather than by command. Under Article 10(1)(c) an inspector may carry out a visual assessment of the securing of the vehicle’s cargo; under Article 13(1) a vehicle may be subject to an inspection of its cargo securing in accordance with Annex III; under Article 13(2) cargo securing and its inspection may be carried out in accordance with the principles and, where appropriate, the standards laid down in Section I of Annex III. Annex III supplies the measure, and the directive’s own verbs leave its use optional. Inside the annex the wording is imperative.

Cargo securing shall withstand the following forces resulting from accelerations and decelerations of the vehicle: in driving direction, 0,8 times the weight of the cargo; in lateral direction, 0,5 times the weight of the cargo; against driving direction, 0,5 times the weight of the cargo. And, in general, it must prevent tilting or tipping of cargo.

The last clause is a requirement of its own, not a summary of the first three: the annex sets it out as a separate line, and the Commission’s 2014 guidelines list tipping separately from sliding among the movements cargo should be prevented from making.

Annex III paragraph 2 adds something that is not about restraint at all: the distribution of cargo shall take into account the maximum authorised axle loads as well as the necessary minimum axle loads, within the limits of the vehicle’s maximum authorised mass. A load can be well strapped and still fall short of that paragraph because of where along the deck it sits — the problem set out in truck weights.

Where the numbers come from

The coefficients are not arbitrary, and the Commission has published guidelines on them twice. The earlier 208-page European Best Practice Guidelines on Cargo Securing for Road Transport, from the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, records in its quick lashing guide that experimental work was carried out and actual acceleration, braking and centrifugal forces were determined through scientific measurements, which were then used to formulate the minimum requirements given in EN 12195-1. The estimated maxima for normal traffic driving conditions — conditions which, the document is careful to say, include emergency braking — map onto three ordinary events. When starting from a standstill the load acts rearward with an inertial force equal to 0,5 x the weight of the load; when braking, the forward force may equal 0,8 x that weight; when cornering, the lateral force may reach 0,5 x. For loads that are not stable, that edition includes an additional roll factor of 0.2 times the weight of the load.

The later edition, Cargo securing for road transport: 2014 European best practices guidelines, final version of 8 May 2014, carries no roll factor and adds a fourth figure. There the securing arrangement must be capable of withstanding 0,8 of the cargo weight forwards, 0,5 of the cargo weight sideways and towards the rear, and 0,6 of the cargo weight sideways if there is risk of the load tipping. Annex III carries no such fourth figure; Article 13(2) lets securing and its inspection follow the Section I principles and, where appropriate, the standards of point 5, among them EN 12195-1, the standard in which the 2014 guidelines say these parameters and methods are addressed and described. A reader of the 2014 guidelines will find the sideways number stated twice, the higher one for a load at risk of tipping.

Neither edition binds, and both say so in nearly the same words: not binding in the sense of a legal act adopted by the Community (the 2014 edition: by the Union), but the accumulated knowledge of European experts. The earlier preface carries an estimate — up to 25% of accidents involving trucks can be attributable to inadequate cargo securing — that the 2014 edition does not repeat.

The vehicle is part of the restraint system

Annex III paragraph 3 counts the body as part of the securing arrangement whenever it is used as one: the applicable requirements regarding the strength of certain vehicle components, such as the headboard, sideboard, endbords, stanchions or lashing points, shall be taken into account when those components are used for the cargo securing. Three qualifiers matter. The list is illustrative rather than closed; it applies only when the component is used for securing; and it points outward, to requirements set somewhere else. Annex III point 5 lists where: EN 12642 for the strength of the vehicle body structure, EN 12640 for lashing points, and EUMOS 40511 for poles and stanchions.

The Commission’s 2014 guidelines, which state their focus as vehicles over 3.5 tonnes maximum mass, set out what each body code is assumed to hold as a fraction of payload. A Code L headboard takes 40 percent, though for a vehicle with a payload over 12.5 tonnes the requirement is capped at 5,000 daN; a Code L rear wall takes 25 percent, with the same payload condition capping it at 3,100 daN; Code L side walls take 30 percent in a box trailer — and on a curtainsider are regarded as weather protection only.

The earlier guidelines put the curtainsider point with two words capitalised: unless they are purposely designed according to EN 12642-XL, the curtains of curtain-sided vehicles MUST NOT be considered as part of any load restraint system; if they have been designed as a restraint system the load capability should be clearly marked on the vehicle, and if no mark can be seen it should be assumed the curtain has NO load-bearing function. The 2014 edition makes a similar point in the flat register of a note: side walls in a curtainsider built to EN 12642 L are regarded as weather protection only. Whether a curtainsider’s sides count is therefore answered by a mark or a document rather than by the look of the curtain: Krone’s data sheet for the Profi Liner carries a load-securing certificate to EN 12642 Code XL for the standard build. The body types themselves are compared in trailer types.

What a Code XL certificate buys

The XL variant of EN 12642 raises the tested strength of the whole structure, and it is not a curtainsider’s certificate alone: Schmitz Cargobull publishes DIN EN 12642 Code XL as standard for the rigid FERROPLAST box of the S.KO COOL SMART.

The conditions attached to the XL rating decide whether it counts, and Britain’s enforcement agency states them tightly. DVSA’s code of practice — which applies in England, Scotland and Wales, was updated on 9 December 2024, and replaced both Safety of loads on vehicles: code of practice and Load securing: vehicle operator guidance — puts the build standard first: vehicles built to the BS EN 12642 XL standard can withstand a minimum of 40% of the rated payload to the side without additional load securing if they’re loaded to the manufacturer’s specification. The 50 percent figure sits on top of that, and the guidance ties it to enforcement: for proactive enforcement purposes, XL vehicles are accepted as restraining 50% of the rated payload to the side without any extra securing if the load fills the entire load area.

Four conditions define filling it, and all four must hold together: within 30 cm of the front, within 30 cm of the rear, within 8 cm of either side, and without cumulative gaps or a single gap of more than 30 cm along the vehicle load bed. That is positive fit. Where the load will not reach, DVSA allows the gaps to be filled with packing material, dunnage, empty pallets or timbers; where they cannot be filled, the rating stops being effective and the load must be secured as on any non-XL vehicle.

The Commission’s earlier guidelines carry an 80 mm figure of their own, and it is not the same test. There the requirement is that total maximum sideways gaps must not exceed 80 mm for packages to count as properly blocked between sideboards — both sides added together, and only where the vehicle’s superstructures comply with EN 12642 and the load is uniformly distributed. DVSA’s condition is worded per side — within 8cm of either side — and sets no total across the vehicle. The same number, on a different basis.

Two consequences follow. On multi-drop work DVSA allows a diminishing or part load in an XL vehicle only as long as any gaps created by a diminishing load are blocked to maintain positive fit and a partial load which does not fill the load area has extra securing. And the rating attaches to the complete body rather than to a part of it: in DVSA’s words, fitting XL rated curtains to a standard or ‘L’ rated vehicles does not meet the standard.

DVSA adds that an XL body must be supplied with a certificate or other documentation to confirm that the body is rated for load securing. Annex III’s inspection table, for the front wall, the board walls and the rear wall where they are used for securing the cargo, grades insufficient strength as a major deficiency — for the board walls the entry is for the stayers — and qualifies each entry by the phrase certificate or label if applicable; its method of inspection includes checking of certificates where appropriate. The stanchion entry does not carry the phrase: item 10.4.2 reads insufficient strength or design, and names no document at all. Buying a used truck lists the certificate and body plate among the papers to ask for where a vehicle is sold as XL-rated.

The three grades of deficiency

Section II of Annex III scores what the inspector finds, in three definitions worth quoting. A minor deficiency exists when the load has been properly secured but a safety advice might be appropriate. A major deficiency exists when the load has not been sufficiently secured and a significant shifting or overturning of the load or parts thereof is possible. A dangerous deficiency exists when traffic safety is directly endangered due to a risk of loss of cargo or parts thereof or a hazard deriving directly from the cargo or an immediate endangering of persons.

The gap between the first and the second is the word sufficiently, and the major definition turns on what is possible, not on whether anything actually moved. Table 1 then works through specifics whose values are explicitly indicative, subject to the inspector’s discretion — a gap forward to the front wall used for direct securing that is too great is major, while more than 15 cm with danger of penetrating the wall is dangerous.

The escalation rule

The sentence that follows those definitions can move a transport up a grade.

Where several deficiencies are present, the transport is classified in the highest deficiency group. If, in the event that there are several deficiencies, as the effects based on the combination of those deficiencies are expected to reinforce one another, the transport shall be classified in the next higher deficiency level.

Two distinct operations are described. The first is aggregation: three minor findings and one major finding produce a major classification, because the transport takes the grade of its worst item. Nothing is added for quantity alone.

The second is escalation, and it is conditional on interaction. Where the deficiencies reinforce one another, the transport moves up one further level from that highest group. Take an illustration of our own, assembled from two entries in Table 1: a damaged load-restraint device, major under item 20.3.3, and a distance forward to the front wall that the inspector judges too great, major under item 20.1.1.1 but short of the 15 cm with danger of penetrating the wall that would be dangerous on its own. Apart they are two major findings. If the inspector expects the damaged device and the run-up the load has been given to reinforce one another, the transport shall move from major to dangerous.

Two details repay attention. Annex III says shall, not may: where the reinforcing effect is expected, escalation is not an option. And Annex III attaches no locality condition. The parallel provision for vehicle defects, Article 12(3) of the same directive, is drafted more narrowly — a vehicle showing several deficiencies within the same inspection areas may be classified in the next most serious deficiency group if it is considered that the combined effect of those deficiencies results in a higher risk to road safety. The cargo rule is both wider in scope and firmer in wording than the vehicle rule beside it.

What follows a finding

Article 13(3) makes the follow-up machinery of Article 14 available for a cargo securing finding — available, not automatic. The directive says those procedures may also apply in the case of major or dangerous deficiencies related to cargo securing, and the choice is the member state’s. Where it is made, Article 14(1) requires any major or dangerous deficiency to be rectified before the vehicle is further used on public roads, without prejudice to Article 14(3). Article 14(3), for deficiencies which require prompt or immediate rectification due to any direct and immediate risk to road safety, requires use of the vehicle to be restricted or prohibited until they have been rectified; use may be permitted to reach one of the closest workshops where they can be rectified, on condition that the dangerous deficiencies in question have been fixed in such a way as to allow it to reach that workshop and that there is no immediate risk to the safety of its occupants or other road users, and for deficiencies that do not require immediate rectification the member state or competent authority may decide on the conditions and a reasonable timespan under which the vehicle may be used before they are rectified. Where a vehicle registered in another member state is found with a major or dangerous deficiency, or is restricted or prohibited, Article 18(1) sends the result to the contact point of the state of registration; for a vehicle registered outside the Union no such duty applies, and under Article 14(2) member states merely may decide to inform the country of registration. Article 15 allows member states to require a reasonable and proportionate fee where deficiencies have been found following a more detailed inspection, one that should be linked to the cost of carrying out that inspection.

The item that outlasts all of these is Article 6. For M2 and M3, N2 and N3, and O3 and O4 vehicles — the tractor categories are left out of this one — member states must ensure that information on the number and severity of deficiencies found under Annex II and, where applicable, Annex III on vehicles operated by individual undertakings is fed into the risk rating system established under Article 9 of Directive 2006/22/EC, and that it is used to check high-rated undertakings more closely and more often. A cargo securing finding therefore counts towards the operating undertaking’s risk rating, and under Article 9 inspectors may select vehicles of high-risk undertakings as a priority.

Who answers for it

The directive allocates responsibility for cargo securing to nobody. Article 13 sets out how the check may be done and is silent on who answers for what it finds. Article 7(3) is about the vehicle rather than the load: it requires member states to ensure that the responsibilities of undertakings for keeping their vehicles in a safe and roadworthy condition are defined, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the drivers of those vehicles. Article 25 leaves penalties to national law, requiring only that they be effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory.

The Commission’s earlier guidelines are blunter about why the driver cannot always be the whole answer. Liability for the loading and unloading operations should be assumed by the driver, within his responsibilities, and the persons who have executed them — and in practice, the text observes, the driver often couples to a pre-loaded trailer, collects a sealed container, or is made to wait elsewhere while the shipper’s employees load the vehicle. One cannot state that in all circumstances the driver is the sole person responsible for the load carried on his vehicle; in some Member States, the text adds, the legal obligations of the other participants in the transport chain are already accounted for in national regulations. The 2014 edition puts it more generally: responsibilities for cargo securing are based on international conventions and regulations, national legislation and/or contracts between involved parties.

National law is where that becomes concrete. In England, Scotland and Wales the road traffic provisions DVSA lists are general and carry no coefficient at all: section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, on using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, and regulation 100 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, on maintenance and use so as not to be a danger. The figures come from DVSA’s code of practice, which calls itself not a legal document and says examiners will not use this code of practice as a guide to enforcement action; they use the categorisation of vehicle defects. The code’s forward figure is higher than the directive’s: a load securing system must be able to withstand forces equivalent to the entire weight of the load in the forward direction, half the weight of the load to the sides and half to the rear. Where there is a serious load shift, the same guidance says, enforcement agencies will refer to BS EN 12195 1: 2010 when deciding whether enough lashings have been used. It also says that, depending on the circumstances, driving with an insecure load can be classed as careless or dangerous driving, which could result in a custodial sentence, particularly in the most serious cases where someone is killed or injured, and that this applies to the driver, consignors, the vehicle operator, and company directors or partners.

In both the Commission’s earlier guidelines and DVSA’s guidance, the people who load the vehicle appear alongside the driver: the guidelines say liability for the loading should be assumed by the driver, within his responsibilities, and the person(s) who have executed it, and DVSA says operators, drivers and consignors must secure all loads carried on vehicles.