AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

30 m.p.h. for Heavies

1st April 1955, Page 50
1st April 1955
Page 50
Page 51
Page 50, 1st April 1955 — 30 m.p.h. for Heavies
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

TERNV FOR TRUCE

Eighty-one Operators From All Parts Offer Their Views and Provide a Basis for Settlement By A. E. Sherlock-Mesher

WHAT would be a just settlement, as between employer and employee, for an increase in the speed limit on heavy goods vehicles to 30 m.p.h.? To try to answer this question I have, during the past three weeks, sounded the opinions of 81 A-, Band C-licensees in 26 counties from Cornwall to the Scottish border and in Scotland. They are operators of fleets ranging from about five to over 200 vehicles, and they represent a fair cross-section of hauliers and ancillary users throughout the country.

I have analysed their views carefully and have related them to the results of the research conducted by The Commercial Motor with an articulated six-wheeler, laden to 19 tons gross, on seven typical trunk routes. These tests were run at a speed not exceeding 30 mph. and the data obtained were tabulated in great detail in The Commercial Motor on March 11.

Armed with this knowledge, I offer the following solution of the problem which the unions (not the drivers) have created: (I) The National Joint Industrial Council for the road haulage industry should, ask the Minister of Transport to raise the speed limit at once.

(ii) Operators should be recommended to pay, where justified, a bonus of 5s. to 7s, 6d. a week, according to payload capacity, to drivers of six-wheelers and eight-wheelers. Basic pay should not be increased, because some operators will gain little or nothing from a 30 m.p.h. limit. The bonus should not affect calculations of overtime.

(iii) The employers' side of the N.J.I.C. should undertake that no journey schedule would be computed at an average of more than 25 m.p.h. (running time). This high figure is justified on some routes, as The

Commercial Motor has demonstrated. .

(iv) An allowance of 15 minutes for rest should be made in every 51-hour spell of driving. Thus, in any working day of 111 hours all told, only 10-1 hours would be actual driving time. Employers should be entitled to disregard the 15-minute break in any period of driving less than 51 hours.

Statutory Schedules Impracticable

(v) There should be no statutory enforcement of running schedules, because it would be impossible to do so satisfactorily.

(vi) There should be no additional legal obligation on employers with regard to maintenance (such as a certificate of fitness), because heavy vehicles are already generally well maintained and afford a high degree of safety in their design and construction. The Road Haulage Association should, however, express to the Minister of Transport the willingness of members to accept closer attention from vehicle examiners, provided that there was no great interference with business.

(vii) The R.H.A. should set up, with the assistance of technical officers of the Licensing Authorities, area panels to advise members on problems of maintenance. Employees with suitable qualifications should be invited to become members of the panels.

Mr. D. H. McVeigh, a director of McVeigh Transport, Ltd., Grimsby, thought that a negotiated settlement would inspire respect for the N.J.I.C. throughout the industry. Another said that it would reinstate the law in the eyes of drivers.

The only opponent of a limit of 30 m.p.h. was a northern heavy haulier, who was not directly affected and, in any event, thought the roads were at present unsuitable for such a speed.

D8 There is a tendency for operators who run only vehicles under 3 tons unladen to regard the problem as purely academic. This may be an illusion. Many operators are at present running light vehicles to secure advantage of the 30 m.p.h. limit, although they would prefer to buy more robust models. The speed limit for heavy goods vehicles is everybody's concern, for it affects the flow of traffic and influences safety. Too many drivers of heavies tend to watch in their rear-view mirrors for police, instead of giving their whole attention to the road ahead.

Five operators said categorically that higher speed would not help them and .71 believed that it would— in two cases only slightly,, and in one instance indirectly.

It is obvious that all owners of heavy vehicles would not benefit and many must be in circumstances rather similar to those of Ruston and Hornsby, Ltd., Lincoln.

The company have a number of heavies and all but one make short runs between six factories in the city of Lincoln. These are limited by traffic congestion to 20 m.p.h. The exception is a vehicle which runs daily from Lincoln to Grantham, a distance of some 25 miles.

" We obviously could not accommodate, say, three runs, instead of two, between Lincoln and Grantham if the speed limit were increased from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h.," Mr. V. R. Prehn, assistant managing director, told me.

Mr. A. R. Butt, of Morris Transport Co., Ltd., Sutton Coldfield, said that in his case, driving time was small in relation to terminal delays. Mr. J. Rawlings, of J. Rawlings (Haulage), Ltd., Andover, did not expect to be able to do more work in a week, but he looked for benefits in the way of more robust vehicles.

Benefit Theoretical Mr. David McKinnon, director of D. McKinnon (Transport), Ltd., Kilmarnock, thought that theoretically most businesses should benefit from a higher speed limit, but would not always do so in practice. "The less conscientious driver would soon find ways and means of dissipating apy time gained," he remarked.

Fifty-seven operators hoped to be able to deliver a greater tonnage per week and 55 looked for advantages in being able to switch vehicles. Mr. H. Wilson, transport manager of Sketchley, Ltd., Hinckley, the well-. known dyers and cleaners, said that his problem was concerned with bulk rather than weight, and with a 30 m.p.h. limit for heavies, the company would be able to use larger vans and reduce operating costs.

Silver Roadways, Ltd., London, S.E.I4, foresaw the possibility of being able to reduce drivers' hours without affecting pay. Another view was that higher speed might help to discourage the working of excessive hours. Yet another opinion was that the unions would benefit financially by a reduction in the number of fines for speeding, which they at present paid.

Other operators hoped for a slight drop in freight charges or for a reduction in the number of nights that drivers had to spend away from home and, consequently, in subsistence allowance. The only benefit that a Scottish operator expected was in maintaining time tabled deliveries more easily. A London haulier, among others, hoped for lower maintenance costs, because vehicles would be operated at an efficient speed.

The next question is whether drivers should be paid more for theoretically greater effort. Forty-three per cent. of those whom I questioned said, "Yes," and 57 per cent, were equally emphatic in saying, " No." Of the 33 hauliers and ancillary users who agreed to increased pay, one thought that it should apply to drivers of vehicles only over 12 tons payload, and another said that it should be given only if it could be proved that more traffic would be carried.

Mr. J. A. Hill, of the Hill Group, at Botiey, Hants, gave several good reasons against an advance in pay. Only long journeys would be affected, he said, by an increase in the speed limit. If a general advance in wages were granted, the cost of short-journey work and shunting would be raised, but the operator would get no benefit. In addition, drivers preferred long-distance work. Drivers' working hours were limited to 11 a day, whether the limit was 20 m.p.h. or 30 m.p.h., and drivers of heavies should be paid in relation to the general level of wages. Fourthly, an increase in the limit would merely legalize what drivers were now doing.

Mr. T. W. Jackson, a director of Key Warehousing and Transport Co., Ltd., Hull, pointed out that a driver was employed not only to drive, but to load, unload, sheet, rope and so on. It took at least twice as long to load a 14-tanner as a 7-tonner and, consequently, the driver did more labouring work and less driving. "For this reason," he said, "I cannot agree with an argument that if the speed limit is raised, a wage increase is automatically necessary for those drbiers."

Mr. T. A. Titchener, of Titchener and Brown (1954), Ltd., Blackpool, was forthright Employees should, he said, give better service to warrant an increase in pay. Since British Road Services came into being, the unions had only to ask for higher pay and better working conditions to obtain them, with never a suggestion of giving anything in return. .B.R.S. should be brought into the N.J.I.C., instead of acting separately and indirectly forcing free-enterprise hauliers to concede wage claims whenever they were bodged.

Mr. A. F. Wills, vice-chairman of Bristol Industries, Ltd., Bristol, emphasized that care should be taken to limit any wage increase to the drivers of six-wheelers and eight-wheelers, as otherwise all drivers of four-wheelers, including those already permitted to travel at 30 m.p.h., would want to take advantage of it.

Of the minority of operators who would willingly concede an increase in pay, five suggested a fiat advance of 5s. a week.. One proposed a figure between 5s. and 7s. 6d. Another suggested 5s. for drivers of B-licence vehicles and 10s. for those in charge of A-licence lorries. A further proposal was that an increment of 5s. should go to drivers of 7-12-ton vehicles and 7s. 6d. to drivers of 12-15-toriners. Another view was that the increase

should be based on the improvement in average speed.

Eleven operators suggested 7s. 6d. without qualification and one limited an advance of this amount to drivers of multi-wheelers. An increase of 10s. was favoured by six operators and only one agreed to an even higher figure. He was Mr. T. F. McNeill, secretary and general manager of Macclesfield Transport, Ltd., Macclesfield, a hauliers' group. Speaking with the authority of his executive committee of six experienced long-distance hauliers, he said that drivers of multiwheelers carrying 10 tons or more, or drawing trailers, should receive higher pay and the result might be to stop the wave of rate-cutting on the main trunk routes.

Trunk Rates Dropping

"During the last three months," he said, "rates for traffic carried in multi-wheelers from the north-west to London, Bristol and Cardiff have dropped below 45s. a ton. Traffic to Glasgow and Edinburgh is being hauled at less than 50s. a ton. We feel that if drivers of these machines were given an increase in wages, based on the responsibility of the vehicle and the tonnage carried, it would go a long way to prevent further rate-cutting."

Of the 33 operators who favoured higher pay, 18 thought that the enhanced rate should be used in calculating overtime, and 14 were opposed to the idea. 1n effect, those 14 were suggesting a bonus payment, rather than a higher basic rate, although only Mr. E. Bird, of George Payne and Co., Ltd., London, S.E.1, expressed himself in those specific terms.

The proposition that agreed running schedules, based on a maximum of 30 m.p.h., should be made a licence condition, or otherwise have statutory force, was defeated by 50 votes to 25. In fact, it would be impossible, except in the case of regular trunk services, to make a schedule a licence condition.

Whereas with a 20 m.p.h. limit it is probably fair to say that 16i m.p.h. can be averaged on any road in this country, no fixed standard can be laid down with a maximum of 30 m.p.h. At the higher maximum, the average might range anywhere between 16i m.p.h. and about 25 m.p.h., depending on the route, and every conceivable run that any haulier might ever be called upon to undertake would have to be scheduled in advance—a clearly impossible task. •

Stricter Control Accepted

Voting was reversed on the question: Would you agree to stricter control of the condition of your vehicles in return for a 30 mph. limit? Fifty operators said that they would do so and 26 were in opposition. That result is highly significant. It means that the operators of heavies are so confident in the quality of their vehicles and their present standards of maintenance that stricter control would mean nothing to them—and is, therefore, unjustified.

Mr. T. W. Jackson, a director of the Key Warehousing and Transport Co., Ltd., Hull, who thought that operators should submit to more stringent examination of their vehicles, qualified his view with the proviso that the system must not become too bureaucratic and must interfere as little as possible with routine.

These are the views of a representative body of operators controlling several thousand vehicles. One of the most satisfactory features of my inquiry has been the large number of operators (44) who have specifically given me authority to attach their names to controversial expressions of opinion. That is strong evidence of the strength of their convictions—convictions which the N.l.I.C. cannot afford to ignore.


comments powered by Disqus