Beat the Thief
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN the first five months of 1961, no fewer than 2,318 thefts involving the loads of commercial vehicles were recorded in the Metropolitan Police area of London. The value of the goods stolen was £357,812. London, it is true, is the focal point for the attentions of criminals, but evidence is available in plenty of their activities in many other parts of the country. It is safe to assume the country-wide figure to. be around Elm. for the same period.
A number of operators are finding that their insurance companies are adopting an increasingly tough line over goods-in-transit policy premiums. This attitude by the insurers is hardly surprising since it is by no means every operator who takes positive action to combat thieves. , Both the Road Haulage Association and the Traders Road Transport Association have for years drawn attention of their members to this serious problem. Some 2+ years ago the R.H.A. formed its vehicles' security committee, which has a wide range of interests represented on it including C licensees and the police. This committee has carried out a lot of hard work, the effectiveness of which seems to be proved by a reduction in the statistics relating to these crimes.
One message has repeatedly been voiced by everyone who has anything to do with the problem of security. It is that here is something of which salvation lies in operators' own hands. Until everyone—not just the enlightened ones—realizes the seriousness of the situation and acts accordingly, there is little hope of any major change for the better being effected.
This message is once again strongly emphasized in an article which starts on page 86 of this issue. The author of the article draws a parallel between thefts from lorries and road accidents—both are something "that can never happen to me" in the mind of the average person.
Not all operators adopt this ostrich-like approach to life. One undertaking which, in fact, very vigorously makes life difficult for the would-be thief is Atlas Express Co., Ltd., whose thinking and activity on the subject are reported in the article.
One vital factor emerges from their experience. It is not prohibitively expensive, even for the smallest operators, to fit protective devices to a van: Atlas Express put the cost at no higher than £10 to £20 per vehicle. It would presumably be much the same for other types of vehicle. Such an expenditure, to ensure the safety of the vehicle, is surely good sense— for it must not be forgotten that one of the most commonly used methods of stealing a load is for the thieves simply to drive the loaded vehicle away, unload it and abandon it at their leisure.
Last year, the R.H.A. vehicles' security committee staged a competition to find the most effective safety device. The results of this contest, when announced, will assist a great number of operators.
Securing the vehicle is one factor. Securing the driver is even more vital, as the article in today's issue makes clear. One could well adopt an old wartime catchphrase and warn every driver that "Careless Talk Costs Loads." Transport cafds are the favourite haunt of thieves, who listen to drivers' conversations—all too frequently being thus able to detect a vehicle that merits their attention.
So there it is. Security devices on vehicles, trustworthy drivers who understand the necessity of not talking shop at the wrong time, and also, of course, secure premises. Three elementary avenues of attack on thieves. But, it must be clearly understood, avenues which can only lead to success if operators help themselves. Nobody else can do it for them.