AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Independent Hauliers Liberate Their Ideas

23rd December 1949
Page 58
Page 58, 23rd December 1949 — 'Independent Hauliers Liberate Their Ideas
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?

ASSEMBLING in congenial surroundings at Ilford, the Eastern Sub-Area of the Road Haulage Association pioneered an unusual type of meeting on December 15. Under the chairman, Eric R. Taylor, members of the subarea committee set themselves up as shies at whom it was hoped the audience would hurl questions relevant to the road transport industry.

One of the first questioners required an exact definition of excluded traffic, as laid down in the Transport Act, 1947. It was obvious that it was not clear that, whilst household removals were excluded traffic, the transport of antique or new furniture from dealer to dealer or from dealer or maker to purchaser was legitimate traffic for the Road Haulage Executive.

Restrictions on the freedom of C-licensees were also considered. It was pointed out that the British Transport Commission was carefully watching the expansion of C-licence work, and was noting its influence on traffic statistics.

A further warning of the B.T.C.'s wide powers to compete with free hauliers was voiced in the answers to a question on contract licences taken over by the Commission. The Commission is a law unto itself and can do as it sees fit with its vehicles, even to the

A40 extent of using contract licensed vehicles for other purposes, as long as it complies with the requirements of the contract, From there it is no great step for the Executive to bring vehicles from another area to a district where traffic has become reduced, and to produce evidence, when independent hauliers apply for the renewal of licences, that an excess of vehicles is present in the district.

The chairman described the Poynter case as an example. After Mr. Poynter had applied for the specification of • operating bases, and had been permitted by the Licensing Authority to operate from three bases, the R.H.E. objected when licence renewals were sought for vehicles operating from the bases, and secured a reduction of tonnage. This move could be repeated wherever the Executive saw fit.

Apart from a lively discussion on the 20 m.p.h. speed limit, one of the most revealing arguments developed over a debate of the policy of the R.H.A. It* was suggested by one member that the

Association should modify its policy by agreeing to the national ownership and operation of long distance trunk services, but not too severe restrictions on the activities of the independent hauliers. It was suggested that the operating radius should be extended to 60 miles.

Dissention from this view was expressed by several speakers, one of whom said that there was no guarantee that the Executive would keep its vehicles on trunk services. It tended to put long-distance traffic on to the railways, leaving the vehicles free for local work. The Executive's vehicles, he said,, should be kept on the longdistance services, leaving the independent hauliers to do the local work.

To this discussion the chairman put a final word. The railways, although described by several speakers as being uneconomic, might be considered as of strategic value, capable of conferring, much benefit on the Nation. They should therefore become a national charge like the Army, Navy and Air Force.


comments powered by Disqus