Ivernment erference
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
H REFERENCE to your article iintenance worry" (CM tember 3) I feel you are ving the wrong conclusions these figures. In my arience DoT examiners are wiously erratic. I used to take hide off the road for a week ire-MoT checks and repairs, then fail on a blown bulb or mark missing from a marker a. I have also had vehicles first time with cracked and ing sump, punctures, and air leaks.
lot of operators now do as steam the truck, take the :es right up, and let the ars fail what they want to. I repair these faults for a retest. This explains the rise in first test failures, and the rise in second test passes.
My own normal maintenance system caters for the reliability and safety of the truck, the annual test has no real relevance and is just another Government ploy against the truck. Construction and Use Regulations, enforced by traffic police, are quite adequate to prevent a decline in maintenance standards.
With reference also to "Small firms oppose DTp" in the same issue, of course the RHA, composed of established operators, welcomed the CPC: it removes any cornpetition from below. I do think the CPC was a mistake from the Government's and Dors points of view: every operator is now as aware of all aspects of the law as the enforcement agencies. In the old days an operator would bow his head and obey any instruction from the police or DoT. Now he knows his rights and will fight back.
MIKE TAYLOR Surrough Green, Kent