Sea Breeze; ;uit Haulage
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Blackpool Delegates Get Away To A Slow Start : Things Warm Up Later, However
From A. E. Sherlock-Mesher
LETHARGY marked the opening of the Road Haulage Association's Conference at Blackpool on Tuesday. Delegates obviously did not understand the first resolution and were not sufficiently interested to ask questions. It called for the abolition of licensing by registration numbers and unladen weights, and demanded that carriers' licences should instead specify numbers of vehicles in various categories. It contained ideas worthy of debate, but was dismissed almost without discussion.
Mr. J. Holden, of the North Western (Eastern) Area, the proposer, unfortunately failed to explain the mechanics of the scheme and appeared to contradict himself. Nobody asked for further enlightenment.
He said that the present licensing system hampered the operator in choosing the type of vehicle most suitable for his business, and was out of date. If a haulier decided to introduce lighter vehicles without much change in carrying capacity, but later found that the experiment had been unsuccessful, he had the utmost difficulty in recovering the unladen weight that he had sacrificed.
" Do not think that the operator who has a 21-ton vehicle of carrying 'capacity 5-6 tons will be able to change to a 41-ton vehicle of carrying capacity 9-1 tons, thus increasing its carrying capacity by about 50 per cent.," said Mr. Holden. "The resolution does not visualize variations to that extent." He did not say how it could be prevented.
He envisaged that .a vehicle or a certain type would have a disc appropriate to its description. If the operator wished to change to a higher category of unladen weight, he would have his application published and receive objections as at present. Neither Mr. Holden nor Mrs. D. G. Parkin, the seconder, explained how unladen weight could be taken into account under a system which abolished this factor.
Mr. F. C. Harfoot, who proposed the motion, thought it would encourage undesirable weight cutting. Mr. A. C. W. Neely said that control would be taken from the Licensing Authority, and the resolution was lost.
Having failed to gain support in past years a resolution demanding that owners of all commercial vehicles should paint their names and carriers licence numbers on both sides of the vehicle was this year a25
carried by an apathetic audience. The idea, as propounded by Mr. I. Raybould, was that abuse of licensing would be deterred by easier identification of vehicles. In a vigorous speech he said that the transgressors were bringing the industry into disrepute, and declared that some operators were using beer bottle labels as licence discs, Mr. S. N. Slawson declared that the East Midland Area had considered the resolution deeply before submitting it.
Mr. F. Rudman agreed with Mr. Raybould in principle, but not in practice. He pointed out that the resolution. put back the clock; operators did not want to be saddled with a restriction which had once been removed.
The third resolution was the mysterious one in these terms: "That this conference is of the opinion that developments in the design of commercial vehicles warrant a revision of the limits of vehicles' gross laden weights so that their carrying capacities would• vary directly with their unladen weights."
As Mr. G. W. Mousley, of the West Midland Area, unfolded the proposal it appeared to boil down simply to a demand for higher legal gross laden weights. After Mr. R. N. Ingram, a past national chairman, had said that he agreed in principle with the idea but thought it demanded much more careful consideration, the motion was carried in principle. Mr. Ingram warned, howevor, that to pass the resolution would be construed by the Ministry of Transport as meaning that the R.H.A. supported plating. Mr. Mousley attacked the request by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders for plating, without first consulting the R.H.A: or other associations. His argument was that operators who wanted to run heavier vehicles should not suffer by a reduction in payload. He spoke of gross overloading, and made a plea for strict enforcement of sensible maximum gross weights. •
Mr. A.-McFarlin., from the Devon and Cornwall Area, the seconder, in fact recommended plating.
The resolution was supported by Mr. G. C. Goodier, Mr. D. H. Dale, Mr. Harfoot, Mr. F.E. Russett, Mr. F. Rudman, and Mr. Slawson, Mr. Goodie]. thought the proposal would increase safety, but declared that the trend was towards the purchase of the lightest possible vehicle to carry 10 tons.
Mr. Harfoot said plating was not mentioned • in the motion and he did not favour it. Mr. J. Hewson, speaking in opposition, said the supporters were users of the heavier vehicles and would gain most from the proposal. Small operators of lighter vehicles would suffer. The idea was impracticable. Mr. Rudman argued that an operator who paid a high price for a suitable vehicle was at a disadvantage under the present system.
Mr. Ralph Cropper was obviously mystified by the whole resolution. He asked what gross laden weights were to be revised, and thought that plating might be the only answer to the problem. He believed the wise course was to reject the motion. and bring it forward again later when it had been better digested and prepared.
Apart from Mr. R. Clifford, the proposer, and Mr. R. Durham (of the Northern Area) the seconder, everyone spoke against their motion that in the interests of drivers' efficiency cab heaters should be standard equipment in all new commercial vehicles. Mr. Clifford said that original equipment was better than that fitted as an extra. On an expensive vehicle the additional cost of a heater was less than 0.5 per cent, of the total, or in the case of a mass produced outfit, 1 per cent.
After Mr. J. Rawlings, Mr. Harfoot, Mr. Holden, Mr. T. W. Jackson and Mr. J. Morris had opposed the resolution, it was thrown out. The general feeling
seemed to be that heaters were liable to cause drowsiness and to be dangerous.
There was no support for a proposal by Mr. R. Durham, seconded by Mr. E. -H. Patterson, of the Northern Area, that the classification of heavy motorcars should be raised from 3 tons to 4 tons unladen. Mr. Durham pointed out that vehicles were now being built more heavily and were safer; he wished 21year-old men to be able to drive larger vehicles. Mr. Harfoot, who opposed the scheme, said that insurance companies were now asking how many drivers under the age of 25 operators were employing.
Mr. D. McVeigh, another opponent, quoted from an investigation of the records of a fleet of 350 vehicles. These showed that accidents occurred mainly to younger, single drivers. He thought they went to bed too late and were in no condition to work safely the next day.
Six on Roads