AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OPINIONS and QUERIES

26th July 1935, Page 54
26th July 1935
Page 54
Page 55
Page 54, 26th July 1935 — OPINIONS and QUERIES
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?

A PLEA FOR A RAISING OF THE SPEED LIMIT ON HEAVY VEHICLES.

[4597] I should like, through your valuable paper, to point out to commercial-vehicle makers and owners that the time is ripe to unite in the endeavour to raise the speed limit of heavy vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h., except where trailers are used. I think that the makers of heavy wagons would benefit by it, for the simple reason that the fleet owner Would buy a 5-tonner or bigger-capacity vehicle instead of a 3-tonner. This would almost do away with the trouble of overloading. I think if the limit could be raised to 30 m.p.h. there would not be many speeding offences. When that law was made vehicles were not up to the standard which they achieve to-day.

Stoke-on-Trent, UNEMPLOYED DRIVER.

RAILWAYS GAIN IN REPLACING HORSED TRANSPORT.

[4598] At the risk of being considered a scaremonger, I would draw particular attention to Section 6, subsection 2 (e) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, under which the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles shall have the consideration of the Licensing Authority. It may well be remarked that this consideration can be extended to all carriers recognized by the Act, but it should be appreciated that comparatively few of the thousands of hauliers operating throughout the country employed horse-drawn vehicles during the basic year, or do so now. The advantage to be gained by this provision of the Act, to my mind, must rest largely with the four railway companies and their associated road-transport concerns which are operators of horsedrawn vehicles on a considerable scale, and were even more so during the basic year. By a wave of the wand they are in the happy position of being able to mechanize these establishments, unit by unit.

The significance of replacing horses for machines lies in the question of wider scope and the manifold advantages to be gained thereby wider licences unrestricted as to radius. The horse, by nature, being limited in this respect, why should not that which replaces it be similarly restricted, thus avoiding the possibility of the operator gaining an unfair advantage, unjustified by past records? In other words, why not compel operation under a " B " or limited-carrier's licence?

By the adoption of my suggestion the haulier would be safeguarded to an extent against the depredations of the railways and, in justification of this view, I would draw attention to the Buff Book (Trade and Corn u36 inercial Directory) for London, wherein the London Midland and Scottish Railway Co. appear under each of the following classificaticins " Haulage Contractors," " Road Transport Contractors." In each case the entry is emphasized in heavy leaded type, although ordinary type is used elsewhere for the classification of railway companies.

The Act refers specifically to horse-drawn vehicles. The railways have hundreds of these vehicles still in their yards, so far as I have observed. They are not necessarily employed or employable, but they are, none the less, far too valuable nowadays as a potential quid pro quo to write off as obsolete.

Finally, should not evidence of the disposal of both vehicles and horses be desirable whenever motor vehicles in lien are applied for? A declaration of the residue of this convertible tonnage would also be of • interest to the haulage industry.

London, S.W.1. E. H. B. PALMER.

HOW TO LODGE AN APPEAL.

[4599] I have just had my public carrier's " A " licence refused by the North-Western Licensing Authority, although I started in business in January, 1932, with a partner, who withdrew from the business in 1933.

In the first place, my case should have been heard in March, 1935, but owing to illness I was unable to attend. I wrote to inform the Authority of the circumstances, but never received a reply.

I have now received a letter dated May 16, 1935, refusing my licence. I was not informed when the case wasfor hearing and so do not know, on what grounds my application has been refused. I should like to add that my late partner is not engaged in the haulage business in any way. Could you tell me how I am to go about lodging an appeal? C.J. Liverpool.

[In order to appeal you must give notice in writing to the Appeal Tribunal at its office not later than one month after the date of the publication of the issue of " Applications and Decisions " in which the decision of the Commissioner appeared. Your notice must indicate precisely . the decision against which you are appealing, and must state the grounds on which the appeal is made. A copy must be sent to the Licensing Authority, also to every person who made an objection to the application. The above provisions are contained in the GoodsVehicles (Licences and Prohibitions) Piovisional Regulations, 1935, dated June 7, a copy of which can be obtained through any bookseller, price 6d. The Regulations regarding thg Appeal Tribunal are contained in The Road

and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (Appeal Tribunal) Rules, 1934, dated June 27, 1939, price 2d. Upon receipt of this letter we would advise you to call upon the Clerk to the North-Western authority, who will no doubt assist you in preparing the notice of your appeal, or put you into communication with a local solicitor whom you can instruct to act on your behalf.—En.l A FRUIT FARMER'S TRANSPORT DIFFICULTIES.

[4600] f am a fruit farmer and haulage contractor. I have a Commer-Carrimore articulated vehicle operating under a B licence, and the weight of this vehicle is just under 3 tons. I wish to deliver soft fruit from my own farm to various markets, in which case it will be iRecessary to travel at 30 m.p.h. Would it be permissible for me to put a truck body on the tractor chassis (is this case the weight will be under 2 tons), .providing that I put the operating discs for tractor and semi-trai r on the tractor? Is it necessary to obtain permission from the Licensing Authority to do this, as this change vouid apply for only two months?

In previous years I have always collected my fruit pickers from a neighbouring town, , and carried them free of Charge to my farm for picking at piece-work rates. All I had to do was to pay an additional premium for insuring passengers.

I have now been offered a 20-seater coach. Can I 'operate this under the agricultural goods-vehicle licence based on unladen weight, for the purpose of carrying fruit pickers free of charge, also my own fruit to the station, providing that I have a suitable insurance cer

tificate? H.G.C. Surlingham. fit 'appears to us that it will be necessary for you to obtain' permission from the Licensing Authority before you make the suggested alteration to your CommerCarrimore outfit.. The point is one which is not expressly dealt with in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, which contains no reference to alterations to vehicles which have been licensed under that Act, but subsection •(3) of section 2 provides that a B licence shall entitle the holder thereof to use the authorized vehicles for the purposes mentioned, and sub-section (6) provides that the vehicles authorized to be used -under a licence shall be such motor vehicles as are specified in the licence. It appears to us that it might well be said that the tractor chassis with a truck body was a di ferent vehicle from the Commer-Carrimore which is licensed. If you make the alteration suggested it will also be necessary for you to notify the County Council with which the vehicle is lkensed, and to have the necessary alterations made in the licence and registration book, as the particulars of the altered vehicle will differ from the particulars appearing on the licence and in the book. Furthermore; it will he necessary for you to notify your insurance company, and to be satisfied that it will cover the vehicle when used in the altered state. With regard to the licence duty for a Motor coach used solely for the conveyance • of fruit pickers free of charge, it is clear that ydu will not be entitled to license the coach as an agricultural goods vehicle. The reduced rates of duty under the Finance Act, 1933, apply only to goods vehicles registered under the Roads Act, 1920. in the name of a person engaged in agriculture, and used on roads solely by that person for the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies and for no • other purpose. It appears to us that a coach used for the purposes you mention should be licensed upon the horse-power basis.—Er3.1


comments powered by Disqus