OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 63
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
POINTS ON INSURANCE IN RELATION TO GOVERNMENT DRIVING TESTS.
14533) The Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sec. 31, prohibits the driving of a heavy goods vehicle by any person who does not hold a special licence for the purpose, and makes it an offence for anyone to employ a person who is not so licensed.
Subject to certain exceptions, applicants for these licences must pass a test imposed by. a Government inspector, and a vehicle must be provided for the purpose. It can be assumed that in the ordinary course of business, an employer would loan his vehicle for this purpose to his employee desirous of qualifying for his licence to drive; it can also be assumed that while conducting the test the examiners would travel on the vehicle. Important points would then arise in connection with insurance.
Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that a person shall not use, or cause or permit to be used, a motor vehicle on a road unless there be in force a policy of inurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of the Act. It is true that Sec. 30 provides that such third-party policies shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from the vehicle, except in the case of fare-paying passengers, but this does not absolve the driver or the owner of the vehicle from being held liable for damages in the event of the examiner being killed or injured ; and, furthermore, insurance policies for commercial vehicles usually exclude liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person carried in or getting on or off the vehicle.
A further common exception in commercial-vehicle policies is when the vehicle is used for purposes other than those mentioned in the policy, which purposes are usually ordinary commercial purposes. It can he argued that when a vehicle is being used for the purpose of a driving test, it is not being used for the purpose mentioned in the policy, therefore, should an accident arise, causing perhaps loss of life or damage to third parties, while the vehicle is being so used, the insurance company might deny the owner the protection of his policy, and he would thereupon be faced with serious claims from injured parties.
It is, therefore, important that owners of all commercial vehicles should satisfy themselves that they have adequate protection under their policies, or obtain from
their insurance company an endorsement to cover them for the risks referred to. KYNDWIL. London, E.C.3.
CRITICISMS OF THE 30 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT.
• [4534] I think that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in builtup areas is one of the most childish pieces of legislation that has ever been passed. In the first place, it is "miles too fast" in the town areas and "miles too slow" on the outskirts of, so-called, built-up areas.
If this speed limit be intended to prevent so many accidents and deaths, then the only remedy is to go back to the time when I commenced driving (1878), ',when a man with a red flag had to walk in front of a vehicle and the speed limit was 4 m.p.h. Perhaps it would be better if some of the people who advocate 30 m.p.h. went back to the "Tortoise Age," when the ancients travelled one mile in a year—it would certainly suit the people who had a hand in passing this Act.
I have been driving self-propelled vehicles for nearly 60 years, and whilst we see the speeding-up of railways and shipping, aeroplanes creating new flying records, Sir Malcolm Campbell breaking the world's land speed record—which is a great " flip-up " for Britain—we poor motorists (the motor industry is the fourth largest in the country) have been politely told to go at 30 m.p.h. where 60 to 80 is perfectly safe, and at 30 m.p.h. where it is most dangerous in towns. One begins to wonder what we are coming to.
Men who run businesses successfully are the men we need to make our laws. This is the one sure remedy.
Sandbach. E. R. FODEN.
COSTING AND MAINTAINING A LARGE FLEET.
[4535] Could you please supply me with a good example of cost accountancy as relating to a fleet of approximately 120 vehicles, also a rough idea of a maintenance scheme for this and a list of such large tools as would be necessary? G. S. BELBIE. Gotham.
[You will find suggestions for your costing scheme in the articles which have appeared under the title "Problems of the Haulier and Carrier" in this journal during December, 1934, and January, 1935. You will appreciate from this that the subject is too big to deal with in a letter. For the maintenance of a fleet of vehicles 120 in number you should have the following equipment :—Air-compressor with pipe lines to convenient points; high-pressure greasing apparatus ; high-pressure washing plant, six to
eight guns ; portable oil tank and pump ; electrical test bench ; battery-charging plant ; brake-relining machine; brake-drum-truing machine ; 80-ton press ; four heavy jacks ; two portable garage cranes, one of the Jackrane type , two engine stands ; chemical cleaning tank ; gianttyre remover ; magnetic crack detector ; engine kit for decarbonizing ; valve-truing machine ; complete sets of hub drawers; set of body-lifting jacks; crankshaft, connecting-rod and piston-rod aligning jigs; cylinder-reboring equipment ; lathe with gap bed big enough to swing engine flywheels with clutches ; small drilling machine, milling machine and grinding machine.—S.T.R.1 DEPRECIATION ON MOTORBUSES.
145361 We are anxious to know what the recognized depreciation amounts to in respect of stage carriages, and wonder if you would assist us in this matter. We have been told by another operator that the depreciation is based on a life of five years; for instance, the depreciation on a vehicle costing £600 would be £120 per year.
This appears to us wrong, as in our case our vehicles do only 10,000 miles per year, owing to our route being very short.
' If you are ablo to help us, we should be extremely grateful. SECRETARY. Walton-on-Thames.
[Depreciation depends as much upon the conditions of use as upon the vehicle. London Transport takes an average of eight years, but of course the mileage of the vehicles is very much greater than that of yours. If the public you serve be likely to be diverted to other means for travel, or even to object strongly to your continued use of old and out-of-date vehicles, your period for depreciation will be affected accordingly. A favourable average for public-service vehicles generally is lid. per mile, and that would probably meet your own case. For income-tax purposes the agreed rate for the next five years -is 20 per cent, on the written-down value, which means considerably less than the figure that you give.—S,T.R.] THE SPARE WHEEL AS LOOSE EQUIPMENT.
[4587] In your issue of February 1, pages 841 to 842, you gave particulars of a road test of the Thomycroft Speedy tractor chassis with Eagle articulated attachment.
I note that when remarking on the actual weight and its possible reduction you include the spare wheel (with tyre, of course), tools, oil, petrol and water.
Near the end of 1934 I was required by the local Licensing Authority to weigh a light lorry of mine, and I was informed that the only allowances I could claim from gross weight were petrol and water and tools; in fact, I was told definitely that the spare wheel and oil were not allowed, and an extract from something or other was read that seemed to afford corroboration of this.
I should, therefore, be pleased if you would state under what authority the allowances referred to in your article are given, with a view to bringing this matter to the attention of my local licensing authority.
Newtown. J. HERRON.
[We have approached the Ministry of Transport with a .view to obtaining a ruling on the question of whether the spare wheel of a commercial goods vehicle is regarded as loose equipment or as part of the machine. The Ministry of Transport informs us that the spare wheel is usually regarded as loose equipment, but its support as part of the vehicle. The Ministry cannot give us any more definite ruling, but would, we think, take the matter up on your behalf with your Licensing Authority if you wrote to it direct, stating the exact circumstances, the name of your Authority and the registration number of the machine. The address of the Ministry of Transport is 7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W.1.—Eo.]
COSTS FOR CEMENT HAULAGE.
[4538] I shall be glad if you will give me your valueable advice in the following matter :—I am the owner of three Leyland lorries of four, five and six-tons capacity and have been asked to quote for haulage of cement to the chief towns within a 45-mile radius. As I have been engaged on County Council work within a 15-20mile radius, I should be glad if you would give me some idea of the rates to charge. I really intend chiefly to utilize the six-ton lorry on this job. All the lorries are
of the petrol type. W. H. SIMPSON. Sheffield.
[You have hardly given me sufficient information on your inquiry to enable me to deal with it as I should like. In particular you do not tell me how many drops are likely to occur upon each journey. On the assumption that your 6-tonners are used, I have made calculations upon the basis of a charge at the rate of 6d. per mile and 5s. 6d. per hour, and recommend you to make your own assessment of rates in a similar manner. Assuming a single drop and a journey of 25 miles out and 25 miles back, the charge should be 47s., calculated as follows: If hour for loading and unloading, plus 2.i hours travelling time, that is 4 hours, which, at 5s. 6d. per hour, is 22s.; add for 50 miles at 6d. per mile, 25s: total 47s. Now take a journey which involves a total mileage of 90 and includes, say, four drops. Allow one hour for loading and I-hour for each drop: total 2 hours. Allow 5 hours for travelling, that is 7 hours. Such a job would take a day and should be charged at `8 hours: 8 hours at 5s. 6d. is 44s. and 90 miles at 6d. is 45s. : total .E4 9s.—S.T.R.]