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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228 
ELBOWED OFF
Page 121
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CONSIDERED in isolation, each of the various proposals put forward by the Ministry of Transport for amending the Construction and Use and the Authorization of Special Types regulations seems reasonable, even if open to argument. It is only When the proposals are taken as awhole that they arouse uneasiness, at least among some operators. On more than one occasion recently they have detected a shift in the attitude of the authorities that control their destinies—either the Ministry
or. the Minister himself. . .
There have been numerous restrictions, many of them harsh; imposed upon road transport in the past. Whenever this hhappened, operator's have shown the expected indignation and have not hesitated to accuse the Government of persecution. At the same time, they have privately remained convinced that their oppressors have regarded the restrictions as regrettable necessities and would be only too pleased to repeal them if ever it became possible.
Fundamentally, the authorities have been credited with having their heart in the right place. They were believed when they said that their foremost aim was to meet the wishes of trade and industry, which were evidently in favour of a modern road system at the earliest possible moment. It was primarily for the carriage of goods that the motorways were to be built.
It is ironical that, just when the motorways and other Unproved highways are beginning to make their presence felt, operators should begin to suspect that the authorities no longer have a single-minded devotion (sometimes hidden beneath a rough exterior) for the transport needs of the manufacturer. It would be a bold claim to make that the newly proposed restrictions are any worse than some that are already law. Operators merely feel that the intention behind the restrictions has changed. Where previously it had seemed that the rights of the commercial-vehicle user were being respected as far as was practicable, he now feels that he is considered a nuisance marked down to be elbowed off the road.
The unexpected interpolation in the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act has helped to set the tone. It was bad enough previously, or so operators thought, that a ban on loading and unloading for up to six hours out of 24 should not be regarded as preventing reasonable. access. There seemed no reason for abolishing the limit of six hours, as the new legislation has done, so that it is now possible in theory for a hapless trader to be perpetually denied the right to load or unload a vehicle outside his premises.
The Hated Lorry
Nobody believes that this would happen literally, or that local authorities will at once endeavour to close /whole thoroughfares to the hated lorry. The fact remains that the status of the lorry has altered. It is now allowed into a street only on sufferance:
The new proposals for outsize loads have been presented to operators in two stages. At first only the largest items were involved, and the reason for extra restrictions was said to be the road congestion caused by the passage of an abnormal and indivisible load. More recently the plans have been extended to cover all vehicles carrying wide or long loads or having fixed appliances or apparatus that extend for more than a short distance beyond the vehicle itself. Traffic difficulties are again put forward as an excuse for these fresh restrictions, but there is also a reference to the number of. accidents caused by prdjecting • foadSrand such
things as mabile cranes. -.
Taken together, the , proposals -.begin by • extending the onerous proviSions of the Special Types orders to limit the movement of abnormal indivisible loads on roads other than motorways to a. width. of 14 ft; Limitations are also suggested on the carriage of a load which, with.its carrying vehicle, exceeds an overall length of 80 ft. The 'next stage falls within the ambit Of the Construction and Use Regulations, and would place extra difficulties in the way of carrying certain.indivisible loads or appliances. If they project more than10 ft. beyond the front or rear' of their carrying vehicle, there ate provisions for them tohe marked, for attendants to be Carried and for the police to be rtotified. -Modified requirements would have to. be fulfilled . where there was a forward projection of 6 ft. or ra rearward projection of 3 ft...6 in. Where overall length exceeds 40 ft. an attendant is to be provided,' and when it "eiceeds. 50 ft.
the police are to be notified of the movement. r
The-general effect of the proposals cannot but be to discourage the consignment of awkward loads by road. The intention is plainly that, where possible, some other form of transport should be used. The Minister end the Ministry might deny that they are actually directing traffic. but this is how it appears to the operators far More insistently than in the past.
Tinkering Government — Evidently it appears this way alSo to other people. The most memorable observaticha so far haSbeen -by Lord Stonham, according to a quotation publiShed by Time and Tide. The Government, he says; are " atthe moment tinkering with the idea of putting restrictions on excessively large freight consignments by road." From the point of view of the operators concerned, the Government's proposals amount to a good deal more than tinkering, but Lord Stonham would like to go even further.
He is president of the Road and Rail Association, a body to which'! have more than once referred, and in his remarks quoted by Time and Tide he has elected to express more positive .opinions . than previously. He .comes out flatly in favour of ending the uncontrolled expansion of private road transport, and asks for a graduated tax on A, 13 and C licences to discourage heavy long-distance goods traffic from going by road. " Private users of transport do not have a 'prescriptive right to clutter up the roads so that they become inefficient," he declares.
At least be makes clear what road operators may expect from the self-styled impartial Road and Rail Association. They cannot feel any easier in their minds at his apparent assumption that the new restrictions proposed for heavy vehicles indicate that the Government have accepted his ideas in principle.
All this supports the view of operators Who believe they have a difficult. time ahead. It will proVide a severe test for their unity and their loyalty to each other. Many operators and users will not be affected by the new proposals, or do not suppose that they will be affected. The net effect will be to discourage the carriage of loads exceeding certain weights and dimensions, and it is not everybody who has loads of this kind. If there were no vigorous protests from the road goods transport industry as a whole, a further attempt might soon be made to impose additional restrictions. Hauliers in particular would be well advised to treat the latest proposals as merely one stage in a general campaign against them.