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 
England Beats Weymouth Bay to Win
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IrYMOUTHS weather luck with the weaer last year was not repeated this year. With
uch an early date for the round—the site is not available later than a fortnight before Easter—good conditions cannot really be expected. But the weather could not have been much worse. It poured all morning so that by the lunch break all the marshals on the manceuvrability tests and most of the small number of spectators were soaked. In the afternoon there was fortunately some improvement but not sufficient to dispel the general air of gloom.
Some of the competitors must have felt more gloom when they saw their marks for I have never before seen such high penalties as there were in many cases. This was particularly so in the first three classes—one driver had 1,161 in Class B and five in Class C had between 900 and 1,200 penalties. In the other sections scores of over 400 were not uncommon. The rain no doubt played a major part in this by hampering vision, especially in mirrors, this being borne out by the high number of faults incurred by many drivers on Test I (kerb parking) where good mirrors are essential.
But the rain was not solely to blame, for many competitors did not seem to know what they had to do. On Test I, a driver in Class B had 775 penalties and one in Class C had 768. In the latter class, no fewer than four men did not complete the test and received 818 penalties-50 more than the worst completed performance. The reason for the high penalties of the two first-mentioned drivers was that they shunted back and forward in the bay trying to get closer to the kerb, not realizing that every extra move was piling on the marks.
A lot of time was wasted early in the day with drivers questioning marshals about what had to be done. There should be no need for this, as every driver should be able to get hold of a copy of the national regulations. I was told that 5,000 had been printed by the national committee, which, with 20-odd centres, allows an average of over 200 each—which should be enough!
The 1964 kerb parking and width judgment tests are virtually the same as in last year's competitions, but reversing into a loading bay has been changed; following the usual practice, it is the
same as one of the tests at the last national final. The "bay" is set at an angle of about 40 to the line of travel and the test appeared to cause little trouble to most drivers of rigid vehicles.
The test is straightforward also for attics with platform semi-trailers where it is possible for the driver to put his head out of the cab to watch the nearside rear corner of the outfit. But it is extremely difficult with box or tanker semitrailers (or flats with high headboards) where the driver is reversing on his blind side.
I had just come to the conclusion that the test was virtually impossible for box or tanker artics when E. L. England began his run back in his Regent tanker and although it was obvious that he could not possibly see the bay, he reversed perfectly into it. A remarkable feat and although after the tests Mr. England told me he had been lucky, he confirmed that he had planned his reverse movement before starting the test and began turning into the bay from a memorized position. I do not think there was very much luck and that Mr. England well deserved the applause he got for a brilliant piece of driving. Confirming this (and my original thoughts) the two drivers in the next artic class both failed to get into the bay.—they had platform trailers with high headboards—and were obviously reversing completely "blind ".
Driver England also did well in his other tests and turned out to he the overall winner. In doing so he only just beat R. Tugwell—Class D winner—and it was ironic that last year at Weymouth Mr. Tugwell was just pipped for the overall award also by a Regent driverR. Dixon—who was a spectator this year instead of a competitor. But Mr. Tugwell got the award for best C-licensed vehicle, as he did last year, this being based on the lowest number of penalties, not on the formula used for the overall winner. Other consistent performers at Weymouth were J. W. O'Brien who won Class B for the second year and F. Godwin, second last year and first in Class C this
year. A. J. W