Defendants appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining Defendant Pesce’s violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-13-4 (obedience to devices) and Defendant PGT Trucking’s violation of § 31-25-30 (axle restriction on the Pawtucket River Bridge and Sakonnet River Bridge).  Defendant Pesce argued that the official traffic control device posted near the Pawtucket River Bridge (prohibiting vehicles with more than two axles from crossing) was not applicable to him because the vehicle he operated fell outside the ambit of § 31-25-30 and, therefore, that the trial judge’s decision was an error of law.  Specifically, Defendant Pesce argued that the term “vehicle” as described in the statute did not refer to a tractor-trailer combination but rather should be read to mean that the motorized tractor portion of the vehicle is a separate and distinct vehicle from the non-motorized trailer portion.  The Panel explained that § 31-1-5 of the Motor Vehicle Code specifically defines a “tractor-trailer combination” as “every combination of a tractor and a trailer, properly attached to the tractor to form an articulated vehicle.”  Therefore, the Panel held that when the motorized tractor Defendant Pesce operated was attached to the trailer he was towing, the two units merged to form one vehicle, putting his vehicle within the ambit of § 31-25-30.  Additionally, the Panel explained that such a statutory construction would serve the legislative intent of the statute, which sought to prevent vehicles of such large size and weight from passing over the already structurally deficient bridges covered by the statute.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.