OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on. all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only anti typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted,
Do Clearing Houses Cut Rates ?
Th,e Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MO'TOR.
[1879] Sir,—I have been interested in the discussion caused by the artieleMby your correspondent "The Skotch' and the letter by "Running Costs," and have carefully perused the letter by Mr. Donaldson Wright in the issue for October 11th.
The letter by Mr. Wright lucidly states the case for the clearing houses, and as I have had occasion to take advantage of his house, I know he would do anything to further the interests of the road carrying business. If clearing houses were run on lines suggested by him, they would be a blessing to business and would be held in respect, by the haulage contractor, but he does not seem to be aware of the effect of the competition of two clearing houses operating in the same distriot, with only their own interests at heart.
There are two big combinations of clearing houses with offices in provincial cities. They both seem to resent the existence of the other. They are fighting, with the haulage contractor to suffer all the way. I am fully aware of the necessity for clearing houses, and the sooner they fulfil their obligations by giving the contractor the price they obtain, less their legitimate commission, the sooner will they be regarded with respect by both trader and contractor. —Yours faithfully, DISGRUNTLED.
Ruinous Coach Taxation.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1880] Sir,—I was interested in letter No. 1870, from Durham' in your issue of October 4th. It is certainly high time that something was done by some of our large mertoring bodies to have thia crushing tax taken off these vehicles and put on the. petrol -for commercial users. Sixpence per gallon on the petrol would not be enicsed half so much by a, little man with two or three vehicles as paying the lump sum down yearly, or even quarterly. I myself as-a! country carrier have three vans used for passengers and goods, and the joint tax is £92. One van I. can only use two days weekly, that is on market days, and one van every day. The other van I have had to lay up, as there is insufficient work to pay the tax and driver's salary. Now, if the tax was levied on the petrel, I would only start to pay the tax when I started to work my vans, and this I could afford; but I cannot afford to pay tax when vans are stand
ing idle.—Yours faithfully, M. KING. Ffingham.
The Cyclist Again a Source of Danger.
The Editor, TnE Cox:annum, MOTOR.
[1881] Sir,—Your correspondence upon the subject of cyclists' rear lights has not aroused the interest it should have done, and I am sorry to see that the metier has been dropped from your columns. As a person interested in the commercial vehicle, and, incidentally, in the rear light problem, I agree with the points of your previous correspondent. Tie puts the matter quite reasonably, to my mind, for surely the pedestrian provides a much more serious problem than the cyclist. The safety of every vehicle is dependent upon the vigilance of the driver, and, therefore, whether other users of the road provide their machines with rear lights or not, the same amount of vigilance must be exercised, -and this is particularly so on the less frequented roads.—Yours faithfully, Gla H. West Hampstead. 13.10
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1882] Sir,—As I am unable to believe that the statement declaring my letter to present "no argument" is used in its hackneyed function, amongst debaters, of avoiding a frank admission that the arguments advanced are irrefutallle, I am constrained to present my arguments in a different form, in order to make the matter unquestionably, clear.
It will be granted; firstly, that Mr. S. F. Edge's dictum to the effect that no motor vehicle should be driven, after dark, at a speed in excess of that which will enable a stop to be made within the distance represented by the effective range of its headlights, is the basis of safety in driving.
Secondly, as in the present state of law (and practice) unilluminated impediments, in the shape of pedestrians (including the special class which airanges itself in motionless couples in the middle of dark suburban roads!), equestrians, straying cattle, dogs, etc., are to be reckoned with, it is hardly a matter of much moment whether the .eyelist, who is overtaken at a much slower rate owing to tho fact that his .pace approximates fairly closely to that at' the average commercial motor vehicle, exhibits a rear light er not. Thirdly, although our motor vehicles carry rear lights, it is probably more on account of their bulk as stationary obstruotions than for any practical utility when on the move. The bicycle is, of course, incapable of constituting a standing obstruction by itself, and its dismounted rider becomes, automatically, a pedestrian, amenable only to laws. affecting that class.
In any ease, it appears a rather undignified argument to advance that, because we have to put up with the nuisance of carrying rear lights, we should clamour for other people to be similarly handl cappedl—Yours faithfully, R. E. DEWBERRY.
The Call for Better Roads.
The Editor, THE C0M11{ERCLIL MOTOR.
[1883] Sir,—The problem of modern transport is being solved by the rapid development of the motor vehicle, but this, introduces a fresh problem—the problem of the road itself, both as to its construction and surface, and much has been said in the public Press as to the difficulty of finding the type of road which, -while presenting a good surface, is strong enough to stand up against modern traffic cen,ditions. This difficulty has been overcome in America by the adoption of the all-coneete road—that is to say, a concrete road with a concrete surface.
It has been definitely proved by experiment that the pull required on a. concrete surface is less than on a. Badmen of any other kind. But, eoncrete roads apart, the lifeof any road would be lengthened by the abolition of steel tyres, which are the ruination of any road surface. In my opinion, and that of many road engineers, rubber tyres should be made compulsory in the public interest. We should have quieter traffic, and the saving to the taxpayer; who after all, pays, for the roads, would be considerable. But this is not the only saving. With a good road surface, the wear and tear_ on the vehicle itself is reduced to a minimum, and thus not only the taxpayer but also the road user benefits enormously, to the advantage of the whole community.—Yours T. J. CLARK.