'oco Much Reliance on Liquid Fuel
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
4DER the heading " Prevent Another Fuel Famine," in your issue dated November 6, Mr. A. R. Wilson, .R.T.E., very rightly points to the way in which recent strike of fuel-tanker drivers exposed one of great transport weaknesses from which we suffer being so dependent upon one form of imported ■ er for road transport, namely, liquid fuel.
his strike has also emphasized the stupidity of the cy that has been followed of late years in so many :s, of allowing electric road passenger transport ems to "rain down," preparatory 'to scrapping for acement by oil-driVen, atmosphere-polluting vehicles: ine of the sound principles which our forebears kept stantly in mind was that one should never place all 's eggs in one basket.
the achievement of our so-called progress, what a of wisdom we have thrown overboard.
.wickenham, Middx. DOUGLAS REYNOLDS.
Compulsory Vehicle Testing?
N page 355 of the November 6 issue of your journal, it is alleged that the Minister of Transport could not template a system of compulsory vehicle-fitness ing because of the expense 'involved.
t has been suggested from official quarters, (chief Stables' reports, etc.), that mechanical deficiencies. of . thanically propelled vehicles contribute to the lose of and limb on the highway. It is, moreover, universally eed that to let a person take charge of a mechanically pelled vehicle without, to some degree, having con-fled to a standard of driving skill approved by an zial driving examiner is extremely undesirable.
f a vehicle is designed and constructed for the riage of eight persons or more for hire or reward .;reby allegedly coming into competition with the ways), it must conform to the Construction and Use ;illations, and be periodically examined by a p:s.v. miner—and quite right, too.
t would therefore appear, even to the most casual erver, that unless a vehicle is to be used in such a otter as to constitute a potential threat of traffic traction, to the railways and to other existing forms surface transport, its mechanical condition in relation a threat to life and limb, is secondary to economic isiderations.
Is classical illustration of this anomalous state of iirs, is that a bus or coach which carries people who not pay any fares (for large public works contractors, vn to site journeys, etc.), is not subject to the rtificate of Fitness regulations, thus throwing the onus mechanical safety on the operators in respect of ir danger which may be present at the time of the tide's journey.
fo institute (as the Minister implies) some voluntary thod of ascertaining a vehicle's fitness would be to roduce a Gilbert and Sullivan atmosphere into an ierwise serious situation, and to blind one's eyes to ise persons most likely to require to have their tides examined.
foresee that those operators who own machines ich are in good order are almost certain to come ward for voluntary examination.
3ther people, however, whose vehicles are In poor idition, are hardly likely, in my opinion, to bring their vehicles to some place or authority, voluntarily, to have them put off the road, and a heavy bill of repairs dictated.
In short, the Ministry of Transport, with its longstanding record of prejudice against automotive surface transport, ceremoniously " unscreens " the old bogey of " expense " in ' one breath, whilst with the next, it transfers huge sums of revenue to other uses. . ' One wonders just how long the road users of this country will tolerate such outmoded, ill-advised, yet strategically well-aimed Meanderings from a souree io which we all might reasonably look for enlightened and . . . _ experienced guidance.
Maltby, Rotherham. DEREK.IvIOORE-HEPPLEFION,
Manager, Peel's Tours.
Underfloor-engined Buses Criticized
AS a 'Istis driver, was very .glad to see Mr. ThorpeBeale's letter published . in your issue dated November 6, in which he drew attention to the disadvantages of underfloor-engined buses with front
entrances.
I have had some experience of these vehicles, on a route whichinvolves travelling along narrow, ill-lit country. roads, • With acute, blind corners to negotiate, and I .011 'convinced that this type of bus is not only inconvenient :but definitely unsatisfactory.
It obviously a good idea to fit a sliding or folding door transversely, to isolate completely the area of the driver's' cab from the saloon. This would, to a great extent, solve the problem of interior lights reflecting on the screens, but it might make boarding and alighting even slower than they are now.
A driver with a sadistic sense of humour might gain some pleasure from the plight of the unfortunate passenger who, on most journeys, falls down (or up) the narrow, steep steps of the entrance. Even the suggested rehash of the T.F. type would still have the disadvantage of a high floor, ' The single-deck buses which I drove were of the same unladen weight as a double-decker, and as a result of the greater weight forward, the steering is very heavy indeed, notwithstanding that it is unusually low geared and has no useful castor.
. Many of my colleagues are of the opinion that vehicles such as these should not have been certified and that they are, in fact, a case, from the point of view of operators, of the means justifiying the end; that end being to carry as many people as possible in a given legal length of vehicle, regardless of any other considerations, even. safety.
London, W.13. S. F. COOKE.
A Change of Attitude
I WAS intrigued to read (The Commercial Motor, !. November 13) of Mr. Ernest Davies, M.P., championing the interests of private-enterprise bus companies who lose money on up to 50 per cent, of their routes. I was under the impression that he regarded them as money-grabbers for whom the only just fate was sequestration by the State. Perhaps even the politicians are beginning to learn something about transport.
Manchester. ROBERT E. LEE.