OPINIONS and QUERIES The Final Report of the Royal Commission.
Page 66
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3306] Sir,—I have just been reading through the final report of the Royal Commission on Transport, and have noticed it states that the use of lighter vehicles should be encouraged, the exact wording of the paragraph being as follows :— "As a general principle the use of lighter vehicles, say; 4 tons or less in weight unladen, should be encouraged in the interests of the highways and their users."
Can you, sir, enlighten me as to what principle is involved in this proposal, as I have myself quite failed to discover it?
In the interests of the highways and their users, various arguments can be brought forward, dealing with such matters as axle weights, total loaded vehicle weight, overall dimensions, etc., but it appears to me that the unladen weight of a vehicle can be of no interest to anyone except the actual operator.
What is the general principle about which the Commissioners appear to be so concerned, and how does the unladen weight of a vehicle enter into it? R. F. CLAYTON (Director, Karrier Motors, Ltd.).
nie Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
133071 Sir,—With regard to the Royal Commission Report on transport, there is no doubt whatever that it does definitely discourage the use of heavy vehicles, or, rather, heavy axle weights, and it seems pretty clear that no four-wheeled vehicle of over six tons net carrying capacity can be legalized.
This, however, does not preclude the use of vehicles of heavy carrying capacity as, by adopting six wheels, loads up to 12 tons net capacity can be carried, or, alternatively, on eight or more wheels, loads up to approximately 14 tons net capacity can be transported. There is no doubt whatever that with the higher speeds, which it is proposed to legalize, the question of axle weight, coupled with speed, will have to be very seriously considered in relation to road damage, as there is abundant evidence available to show that "where there are two classes of vehicle—a four-wheeler and a six-wheeler—carrying the same net load and running at the same speed, because of the reduced axle weight on the six-wheeler, apart from any other consideration, considerably less damage to the road OCCUTS.
On the whole the Royal Commission, in its report, has come to some very fair and logical conclusions. SYDNEY Guy (Managing Director, Guy Motors, Ltd.). the community as a whole, such regulations should, in our opinion, be framed in such a manner as in no way to impede the natural development of the steam-wagon industry.
The uncertainty that has arisen amongst manufacturers and users of road-transport vehicle° in regard to the scope and interpretation of the -toad Traffic Act, 1930, has had already a very serious effect on trade and employment in this particular industry.
These conditions will be further intensified if the suggestions affecting road traffic, contained in the Third and Final Report of the Royal Commission, be adopted. The trend of this report certainly appears to discourage the use and development of heavy roadtransport vehicles by the imposition of increased taxation and restrictions.
Any attempt to divert by legislation or other artificial means the carrying of goods from one form of transport to another is to be deplored and can result only in hampering the natural development of one of the most valuable present-day industries and add to existing unemployment.
Leiston. RICHARD GARRETT AND SONS, LTD.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[33091 Sir,—I have pleasure in giving a short statement of my views on the final report of the Royal Commission on Transport.
Naturally, I am particularly interested in the opinions expressed on heavy commercial goods transport. The report contains an extremely severe indictment of the railways, and points out repeatedly how, in the past, they have failed to meet the reasonable requirements of the trader.
Also, in paragraphs 214 and 215 it is laid down that the principle that should be followed is to adapt the roads to the traffic and not try and fit the traffic to the roads.'
In paragraph 130 it is said there is no reason why the public should be deprived of the benefits it derives from road-transport services_ How, in face of these statements the Commission reconciles its recommendation to discourage the use of vehicles over four tons weight unladen I fain to see.
What prejudice has in the past been created against heavy vehicles has been on account of the vibration caused by them clue to solid tyres, sometimes in a bad condition. Since the evidence was taken on which this report is based there have been great developments in the production of giant low-pressure pneumatic tyres which are capable of taking large loads, and vehicles can now be supplied 'which can legally carry up to about 14 tons of paying load, and which will be absolutely quiet and vibrationless.
I would also point out that one vehicle carrying 12-14 toes causes far less obstruction on the road, and congestion in town areas, than three or four 4-ton vehicles carrying the same quantity of goods.
I do not think the public realizes that the heavy petrol-driven vehicle is in most cases already taxed in excess of £200 per annum for the licence duty, plus petrol tax. The recommendation, therefore, can only have been made to assist the railways, and not in the interests of the public.
As the Commissioners also state that road transport as a whole is paying its fair share of the total cost of the roads, it can hardly be alleged that it is in any way subsidized at the expense of the railways, especially in view of the fact that they now have road powers themselves and have been de-rated.
I believe that this recommendation will be bitterly opposed by all traders, who will object to having their costs of transport further artificially inflated, and I think there is no doubt that they will make their voices heard to some effect on this point in the very near future.
The great publicity which has been given in the daily Press to this recommendation has already very much injured manufacturers of heavy commercial vehicles, and must continue to do so until the question is finally settled.
In conclusion, I think that the Commissioners have rendered the most valuable service in drawing attention to the fact that the diversion of taxation received from road transport to any other purpose than that of the upkeep and development of the road system, is bad finance and unjustified. A. G. SCAMMELL (Director, Scammell Lorries, Ltd.). London, W.C.1.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3310] Sir,—Although I have not had time to digest the final report of the Royal Commission on Transport, certain of the recommendations would, I think, if adopted, be a very serious thing for the commercialvehicle industry in this country.
The proposal that the building of vehicles over 4 tons weight be discouraged is one which would prove very damaging to our chances in the overseas markets.
The demand for the' heavy vehicle overseas is increasing, and it would be disastrous not to be in a position to meet this.
The British heavy vehicle is acknowledged throughout the world to be the finest, and if we manufacturers are discouraged from building these vehicles, then this export market will be the gain of other countries.
At home the haulage of heavy goods by road has many advantages, such as door-to-door service; less chance of pilferage and damage; fewer delays due to trans-shipment, etc.
There are many trades which find a vehicle with a carrying capacity of five tons and over a much more economical proposition than a small one.
Although the 5-ton vehicle marketed by this company scales under four tons complete, this is not the general rule, and the proposal under review would debar a great many of the five-tonners on the road at the present time.
• Before any further consideration is given to this recommendation by "the powers that be" the matter should be very carefully gone into and all interested parties consulted. T. B. KEEp, Director, Luton. For Commer Cars, Ltd.
To Help to Fight Crippling Restrictions.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR,
[3311] Sir,—May I beg the hospitality of your columns to put to all suppliers connected with the motor-coach trade, e.g., chassis and accessory manufacturers, body builders, petrol and oil companies, etc., this pertinent question :
What is likely to happen to your sales when operator after operator is crippled or driven out of business by :
(a) restriction of coaches in central London ; (b) unfair restriction of licences; (c) monopoly of manufacture under the proposed new Bill; (d) oppressive, repressive and depressing regulations of all kinds?
I would frankly ask their financial support for the only association energetically fighting the battle of the independent operators, and I woutd add here that there is no conscientious objection to anonymous contributions, Cheques should be sent to the Secretary, Motor Hirers' and Coach Services Association, 72, Great Portland Street, London, W.1.
ERIC MONAMAN, Chairman, Executive Committee, (For The Motor Hirers' and Coach Services Association.)
An Appreciation of Our Inquiry Bureau.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3312] Sir,—I am much obliged for your prompt replies to my recent inquiries and for the clear and definite manner in which the answers are given. Thanks also for the offer of further assistance, which I much appreciate and which I shall probably want later on,
I am reading the new series on book-keeping in "Problems of the Haulier and Carrier," and am already finding it very helpful. F. H. HOWLETT. Birmingham.
Insuring Passengers on a Motor Shellibier.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL Moo.
[33131 Sir,—We have a motor shellibier which has to be licensed as a goods vehicle. What are we expected to do concerning insurance of passengers?
We also have a private car, which is occasionally used for hire ; this is covered by a car day policy, which also covers our trade plates. What must we do about this vehicle?
What is required to be done regarding the cover of passengers carried under limited trade plates? Is it necessary for a driver to produce a certificate of insurance with the application for his driver's licence? If so, how can drivers obtain their driving licences when they. are not owners of a vehicle of any
kind? F. M. BROWN, Newark. THE GROVE MOTOR CO.
[The motor shellibier will have to be insured in respect of liability to third parties for personal injuries, including liability to the passengers who are conveyed in it, as such passengers would be regarded as being persons who are carried for hire., The fact that passengers will be carried should be disclosed to the insurance company. When insuring the private ear you must inform the insurance company that it will be used on some occasions for carrying passengers for hire, and you must arrange for the policy to cover your liability to such passengers. As you are no doubt aware, not more than two persons in addition to the driver may be carried in a vehicle driven under limited trade plates, each such person being either an employee of the holder of the licence necessary for -the purpose for which the vehicle is being used, or a prospective purchaser for whom a test is being made, or a person nominated by him. You are not legally bound to insure against death of or injury to a person when the accident arises out of and in the course of his employment, nor in respect of liability to any other passenger who is not carried for hire or reward. Consequently it appeamthat so far as insurance is concerned it is not necessary to do anything with regard to passengers carried under limited trade plates. It is not necessary for a driver to produce a certificate of insurance when applying for a driver's licence.—ED.1