1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166 
topic
Page 112
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Not long the days of wine and roses by Janus
WHATEVER HATEVER became of the special relationship between road transport operators and the Conservative Party?
Probably it never existed. Left-wing propagandists invented a world in which the hauliers were the paymasters and the Tories danced to their tune. It was not a convincing world. Even when, as the legend goes, the hauliers kept up a constant cliant for denationalization until the Government appeared to give them their way, the process was not carried out on their terms, and it was halted as soon as the opposition mounted above what the Government considered a safe level.
All that can be learned from past history ii that on occasion the 'wishes of operators coincide with the policy of the Conservative Party more frequently than with that of the Labour Party. There is no evidence of a link elsewhere than at these points of intersection. Much of the evidence leans the other way.
CHANGES in the ownership of other nationalized organizations are now being discussed. The Conservatives are clearly capable of planning a return to free enterprise without prompting from hauliers or anybody else.
Before the General Election, there was a heart-warming pledge from Mr Edward Heath that he would get rid of the provisions for quantity licensing in the Transport Act 1968. He was speaking at a function of the Road Haulage Association, and could hardly have chosen a more sympathetic audience.
What ought to have been realized even at the time was that on this' point Mr Heath and his Party needed no encouragement. Repeal of quantity licensing was in the election programme.
He said nothing about the consequent abolition of the last traces of carriers' licensing. Sortie of the hauliers would have liked to tell him—and may even have told him—that there was no hurry about this item. They were content to keep their A and B licences a little longer.
MR JOHN PEYTON the new Minister for Transport Industries, has proved insensitive to whatever hints were dropped. Realizing that there was no longer any purpose in carriers' licensing—at least within the terms of the Transport Act--he brought it to a somewhat abrupt end with a cheerful word or two that almost seemed to anticipate a round of applause.
He may have felt disappointed. There were hauliers who had hoped for better things from him, although apart from the timing they would be hard put to it to say what other decision he could have reached.
There was still time on another front for him to show himself in his true colours as a friend of the road transport industry. Whether or not the proposal for increases in the permitted laden weights came from operators, they were for the most part in favour of it. In spite of opposition on the grounds of amenity, even the Labour Minister of Transport, Mr Fred Mulley, did not seem wifavourably disposed. In the period before the General Election he appeared to be gathering his courage for the decisive statement.
In the end it was left to Mr Peyton. He turned the proposal down.
Now comes a further refusal. Not only is 32 tons to remain the absolute limit, but any operator whose vehicles are loaded beyond their permitted weight, even if the infringement is small and outside his control, will remain liable to prosecution and conviction.
THE operators had pressed their case strongly. Hauliers were particularly anxious for something to be done. As delicately as possible, they blamed their customers in particular for causing them to break the law.
It is easy to see the customer's point of view. He wants his traffic carried at as economic a rate as possible. If he has a load which he estimates as 10 tons, he will not ask for a vehicle capable of carrying more. The load may be greater than his estimate or may be added to during the interval before the arrival of the lorry.
No doubt the honest customer will explain the situation to the haulier. It would be naive to imagine that there is not a great temptation to say nothing. The driver may not notice the discrepancy and will pick up and deliver the load without trouble. In these circumstances the customer will be getting free transport for perhaps a couple of tons.
Even when the driver finds something wrong, he is reluctant to complain. He would have to take his stand on the law and refuse to leave the yard until the consignment has been suitably lightened. This may not be easy, especially when the goods are in a container. The staff that wen waiting and eager to help load may hav( unaccountably disappeared. The waiting lorry impedes other vehicles. In a number oi ways, the driver and his employer art making themselves unpopular.
liEHIC LES which are mechanical].) loaded, and especially the tipper, an particularly vulnerable. The drive may be warned to watch the proces: carefully, but he must find it difficult ti judge the consistency and the volume o material dumped or poured in a commendable speed. His signal that th( load was sufficient would sometimes not 131 acknowledged immediately by the operate of loading equipment whose earnings an substantially affected by the tonnage hi manages to get away.
In this' case also the driver has littl effective redress. He must first confirm tha his vehicle has been overloaded. If thl suspicion is upheld at the weighbridge, th driver still has the problem of getting rid o the surplus and subsequently the problem o making up the lost time.
Technically the driver is guilty ii circumstances of this kind. His employe may also be involved. Prosecutions ar frequently taken against both and th consequences, financial or otherwise, can b serious. It would help to square the accour if the consignor who regularly cheate operators by overloading their vehicles wa also taken to court.
IT often happens that, in spite of ever precaution by the operator and driver, vehicle is given too much to carry, Th road transport associations are on stron grounds here in arguing that there ought t be no prosecution. There should b permitted a plea of "due diligence".
By not .attempting to refute the argumen the Minister may be thought to hay accepted its force. His counter plea of lac of Parliamentary time has not commende itself to operators. Already surprised by hi refusal to increase the maximum weigi limits, they begin to suspect some of th disadvantages of bringing transport withi the scope of a Department of th Environment. Concern for the image seen to be as strong within Parliament e outside.
ALTHOUGH Mr Peyton says nothin to encourage the idea, operators ma hope that action will less freouentl be taken against them when they can satisl enforcement officers that they have take reasonable precautions to prever overloading. Whether Weights an Measures inspectors or the police will I equally lenient is another matter, outside /V Peyton's competence.
Any operator convicted of overloadir who believes that he has been the victim a miscarriage of justice might do worse the take the matter up with his MP. If sufficie pressure is generated as a result of demo] strably bad cases, the Government me even change its mind about finding tin for the necessary amending legislation.