1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Early warning systems
Page 73
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QUENT REPORTS of prosecutions the past 12 or 18 months give the ssion that the forces of law and order never been so active. The bad operatIre being harried and the evidence of misdeeds is piling up.
hat might have been expected is that tatistics would support this impression. bstantial increase should be seen in the aer of convictions particularly for bad tenance and for overloading.
turns out that the picture is not exactly this. In the year ending in September it is now learned, there were 3,938 ictions for Construction and Use Regua offences (which include overloading). he previous year the total was much :a. at 4,557.
)r offences concerned with drivers' s and records the trend is in the oppodirection. The 1968 figure of 24,761 ictions is almost half as much again as otal of 16,790 in 1967.
lanation7
he annual reports of the Licensing Auties may in due course provide an nation. It is certainly not to be found ecent traffic court proceedings or in t news is given of the activities of traffic staff. The main drive has concentrated defective vehicles rather than the Leeds of drivers.
t the draft application form for an ator's or quality licence the emphasis is he facilities available to the operator to his vehicles up to standard. Although 's and records are not left out of acit it may be thought that they will not ent too much of a problem once the s are in force for keeping written reIs in books and for the fittiiig of tachoihs.
lore than one "Licensing Authority, on ing an application for a licence renewal tfter calling the operator to a special iry, has told him bluntly that unless e are improvements in his maintenance 'mild be unlikely to obtain an operator's ice. There can be no more sinister reJer to all operators that quality licensing mark the beginning of a new era in only the professional is scheduled for ervation.
Varnings in recent cases have often been )mpanied by a penalty some way short )tal revocation. The Licensing Authority ht have been within his rights in going whole distance. His decision to refrain have been due partly to his wish to give operator another chance and partly 'use he was conscious that the Tranr-t Act 1968 will greatly strengthen his rer to punish.
'hen as now the operator will have the to appeal to the Transport Tribunal. re have been several instances in which Tribunal has reversed or reduced a alty imposed in the traffic court and has eel its decision on the precise wording of Road Traffic Act 1960.
lection 178(4) of that measure deals with on taken as a result of conviction or hibitions. The Licensing Authority is not supposed to give a direction unless he is satisfied that the offences are frequent or wilful or have constituted a danger to the public. The Tribunal is invariably careful not to approve a direction unless this condition has been met.
No similar brake on the power to revoke or suspend is included in the 1968 Act. There must be an assumption that the Licensing Authority will deal reasonably with offenders and not, for example, call in a licence for a single offence. There remains also the right of appeal.
Until a few test cases have clarified the situation many an operator may feel that he is living on the edge of a volcano. This may be the attitude of mind that the legislation is intended to induce.
The hazards of a transport manager's licence are tempered a little more. The Licensing Authority is not to revoke or suspend it unless he is satisfied that the relevant offences have been sufficiently frequent or are for any other reason sufficiently serious.
On the other hand the transport manager's licence is a new burden. It must be somewhere in the minds of operators when they learn that yet another Licensing Authority, restraining himself apparently with some difficulty from cancelling a licence on the spot, tells the operator that he will not be given the new type of licence unless he mends his ways.
Main problem
The operator who hears or learns nothing constitutes the main problem. The range of the Ministry's early warning system is still limited to those operators who for the most part are in least need of it.
For two years or more there has been a succession of special meetings, open meetings, lectures, courses and vehicle testing schemes. They may have brought a few recruits into the ranks of the initiated. Most of the support has come from operators who already have a reasonably efficient maintenance system.
They have not wasted their time. There are things that even the best operators can learn. Operators of a different calibre have stayed away and remain untouched by the propaganda and by the threats.
Recent roadside checks are a pointer to what is happening. One purpose has been to catch vehicles which should already have been plated and tested and the purpose has been justified only too well. Something can be done about the handful of operators pulled up in this way. They are an insignificant fraction of the total.
Prohibitions were issued as a result of the checks. There will no doubt be prosecutions to follow and offences listed may include failure to present the vehicle for plating and testing at the appropriate time.
It has been questioned whether roadside checks make the best use of the available Ministry manpower. Whatever the short comings of the testing scheme it is now in operation and must be put to the best advantage. This should mean taking every possible step to persuade operators to submit their vehicles. The testing procedure leads to the expenditure of more time and money by the operator but there should be corresponding economies within the Ministry.
The problem may have been tackled from the wrong end in that too much emphasis has been placed on high standards. The Tester's Manual with its formidable list of points to be considered may have been seen as a challenge by the efficient operator. He would derive satisfaction from seeing his vehicles sail through unscathed.
Waste
On the other hand there was probably no suggestion even in advance of the test that his vehicles were unsafe. From this point of view they are no better after the test. It has been a waste of his time and money and of the resources at the testing station.
What has been the opinion of the bad operator? If he has not seen the manual and other literature he has probably heard enough to realize that his vehicles would not receive a clean bill of health even if he put right the more serious defects of which he must surely be aware.
Eliminating those defects would be a valuable contribution to road safety. It is difficult to suggest that the test should have set its sights lower but a way might have been found to attract rather than repel those vehicles which are the main justification for having a testing scheme in the first place.
There is a danger that the course of events with the scheme will be repeated when quality licensing takes effect. The very accent on quality, attractive though it may be as a publicity weapon, will frighten many operators who are under no illusions about their own quality.
The continually repeated warning that their present licence will not be an automatic guarantee of an operator's licence may have the opposite effect from that intended. They will find ways and means of evading the issue as long as possible. Some of them will continue to run without a licence. This kind of offender is hard to track down and it is usually not possible to impose a harsh penalty, much less take away his non-existent licence.