I 'I' is all too easy to dismiss the Friends of
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
the Earth as a bunch of loonies, and their latest anti-lorry campaign ("Cities for People") as a load of nonsense sponsored by a political hasbeen, the GLC. The 'arguments put forward in the FoE campaign are as empty and as unrealistic as ever, and have only surfaced again now because the GLC is determined to spend its way profligately into the history books.
That being the case, everybody in the haulage industry (and all its lorrydependent customers) can afford to sit back dismissively and let the FoE campaign rattle on, right? WRONG.
The sort of half-truth and emotive waffle being served up in this campaign is exactly the sort of insidious nonsense which will be picked up and run with by trendy candidates in local council elections. It is the sort of nonsense which perpetuates the myths that 'juggernaut' is a synonym for lorry, and that lorries, far from being essential to the standard of life which we enjoy, are somehow more harmful to it than not.
That these people can get away with peddling such nonsense is a sad reflection on the ability of the road transport industry to get across the opposing point of view. There are two basic reasons for that: the industry doesn't have a united view on many issues; and it sells itself very badly.
The lack of unity in viewpoint is perfectly shown in the divergence between the two major industry associations over 40-tonne vehicles. The Freight Transport Association wants them introduced as soon as possible; the Road Haulage Association doesn't want to see a campaign for them started at least until after the next general election, if at all. The manufacturers, as far as we are aware, would like the European harmonisation of 40 tonnes, but think 38 is a better compromise in the absence of their hankered-for efficiency from 44 tonnes. In the absence of a concerted view, it is easy for the environmentalist fringe to advance its simple (and simplistic) message.
The industry's inability to sell whato message it might have is probably an even worse failing than the lack of a complete agreement over the details of that message. Organisations like FoE at past masters at the art of public communication. They choose figurehea with whom the public can identify, like Michael Palin of Transport 2000. They have the commitment to getting their message across: for example, FoE is tackling every single candidate in the IM local council elections. They have grasp the simple concept of ramming a simplt message into the people's faces rather than lobbying the Government with subletics.
For too long, the road transport industry has allowed itself to be portray as the force of reaction, selfishly resistin environmental improvements and imposing itself on the population. Halfhearted attempts at swaying public opinion such as the SMMT's video of L year (who in the industry, far less in tht public, has even seen it?) don't dispel th image. The best arguments which have ever been advanced in favour of the lori have been those of omission: the French lorry blockade, by cutting the lorry-line of communication, showed just how important the lorry was, and yet it was hardly exploited.
What this country needs, rather than . misleading "Cities for People" campaigi is a genuine "People need lorries" campaign. The best thing about one of those, apart from the fact that it would based on truth instead of myth, would I that it would have to rely on some genuine self-discipline in the industry to make sure it really was based on truth. I this industry prepared for that?