OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invitesCorrespondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
A Taxation Suggestion and a Scheme of Co-ordination.
Tice Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2545] Sir,—Whilst agreeing entirely with the points made in the leading article in The Commercial Motor of December 28th, I would like to suggest that you attack the problem at the root, i.e., to advocate not merely a lower scale of taxation, but an entirely new system.
Many people are advocating a reversion to the petrol tax, but it seems to me that this in itself is insufficient, since wear and tear of roads is not always proportionate to petrol consumption. It is more related to the weight borne on each wheel, and any adequate system of taxation needs to give recognition to this point.
Would it be possible to rhise the revenue for the Road Fund from two sources—one, the petrol tax, which would be roughly proportionate (in practice) to mileage run, and the other a tax levied directly on each vehicle in proportion to axle weight or wheel weight? The voluminous statistics of the Ministry of Transport should furnish data for the calculations involved.
Under this system the existing registration would be continued, an the only additional work for the authorities would be in the collection of the petrol tax, which would, presumably, be done nationally. The local authorities would collect the new "weight" tax as they do the present levy.
Any reorganized system of vehicle taxation should be accomplmied by an adjustment of the incidence of responsibility for road maintenance. All the great main trunk roads should be nationalized and maintained by the Ministry of Transport. The work on them might, of course, be done by the authorities through whose arets they pass, but the principle of national maintenance of national through routes should be established.
The lesser main roads in each county could then be transferred from the district to the county councils, and thus the problem of rates in rural areas would be largely avoided.
The problem of the roads, however, is partly connected with the existing state of disorganization in the goods-carrying industry. I need not here dwell at length on the fierceness of the competition that is taking place, beyond ,pointing out that neglect of their vehicles by owners anxious to cut rates to the last farthing results in increasing damage to the roads. Many concerns, in fact, spend more of their time looking for work than doing it, and their ratio of overhead charges to working expenses is enormous. The public cannot thus obtain the full advantages of road transport in securing greater cheapness.
My suggestion is that Transport Guilds should be set up throughout the country. Each guild would be responsible for one administrative county and all the county boroughs geographically situated therein (or In the case of such counties as Rutland, two or three could be grouped). The executive committee of each guild would be a statutory body answerable to the Ministry of Transport and would consist of three sections—one representative of all the local authorities, one of labour, and the third of the road transport (goods) proprietors. ' •
Theguild would, of course, have nothing to do with ancillary transport service, i.e., such fleets as those maintained by grocers, newspapers, etc., but membership and approval of the guild would be essential before a licence could be granted to anyone for any n44 vehicle to be used solely or principally for haulage, parcel-carrying and contracting work.
The procedure would be similar whether a large firm of furniture removers or a new man in the business wanted to put a new vehicle on the road. In the case of the first they would already be members and the guild would merely decide whether the new vehicle was advisable and Inform the local authority accordingly. In the latter case, the advisability of electing a new member would determine the question of a licence. Appeal could be from the guild to the Ministry of Transport (as in the case of passenger licences refused by councils).
Guilds would, of course, be expected to formulate standard rates and to take action against members guilty of cutting. They would also enforce standard rates of wages (as do the county agricultural Rom; mittees). Such matters could best be dealt with by county organizations, since conditions vary; but some sort of national federation of guilds would be valuable for consultative purposes.—Yours faithfully,
Bolton, Lanes. CHAS. S. DUNBAR.
Side-entrance and Rear-entrance Buses.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[25461 Sir,—In the issue of The Commercial Motor for May 25th last, a letter of mine was published drawing attention to the possible danger to passengers should a side-entrance bus topple over on the side of the entrance, and thus Imprison the passengers. It is a well-known fact that when a vehicle, from any cause,' turns over, there is always a risk of it catching fire, as instanced in a recent fatal accident at Merstliam. I see that the other day a single-deck omnibus was in collision with a lorry at St. Albaas and overturned, and that, according to the papers, the roof had to be taken off before all the injured could be got out. I presume that, although this single-deck bus hail a rear exit, there was some difficulty in getting the paSsengers out through it. One hardly likes to think what would have happened had the bus caught fire, as it is quite possible that in such a smash the petrol tank might have sprung a leak, and anyone who knows much about the properties of petrol will understand that such a leak may result in fire being brought from some distance away.
I travel daily over a route served by buses of both types—side entrance and rear entrance—and I fail to see a single good point in the design of the former, either from the point of convenience or safety.
In my letter of May 25th I asked for information from those who make or use side-entrance buses as to what were the good points claimed for this type of bus, but there was no reply. Are we to assume that there are no good points and that this is the reason for the silence? Personally, I am still of the opinion that there is nothing to beat the good old London-type of rear-entrance bus.—Yours faithfully, London. ROAD-USER. •