Overlooking 'over here'
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LAST MONTH an episode of the BBC2 television programme A Moment to Talk featured lorry drivers chatting during a break. Advance publicity suggested that this might be an antidode to last February's Brass Tacks programme which concentrated entirely on the industry's negative aspects.
In the event these hopes were disappointed. The conversation was unstructured (or seemed to be, as much depends on the editing) so there was no single theme. But a number of interesting topics were touched on.
The first concerned the drivers' attitude to the EEC — not so much the details of the hours and tachograph regulations — but the community itself — though organisation might be a more appropriate word, since the drivers showed clearly that they did not have any communal feelings. Every single reference to the EEC was in the context of 'over there'.
No doubt if asked in a television quiz whether Britain was in the EEC all the half dozen drivers would have answered affirmatively. Yet it was clear that their instincts and their intellects were in conflict. They did not think of themselves as citizens of the EEC. They still react to it as an alien body — and a hostile one at that.
They probably share this attitude with most of the British population. Only farmers are likely to feel that they belong to their generous — not to say profligate — Brussels paymasters.
But the drivers went further. The references to 'over there' did not begin to distinguish between the cool ordered hygiene of Denmark and the sunny Mediterranean squalor of Greece, and a lot of places in between. All are lumped together as 'over there'. The idea that over here might be part of 'over there' did not cross their minds.
One thing above all must especially depress any Eurofanatic (surely a rapidly diminishing band) who saw the programme. The drivers were not striking attitudes — their reactions were natural and genuine. The shambles over Britain's refund from the EEC Budget will not have helped to change these. Indeed, the collapse of Nicholas Ridley's 'triumphant' package deal last May over weights, quotas and hours, will have confirmed them, though something might yet be salvaged from that piece of wreckage.
The second point was the drivers' lack of knowledge of some of the basic rules which affect their working lives. Now, it must be admitted that a driver who knew all the details of all the laws which govern him on and off the road would be a certainty for inclusion in the Guinness Book of Records, as would any operator with similar knowledge. But these drivers seemed to be ignorant on some fundamental pieces of legislation. Two examples will illustrate this.
During discussion of the EEC regulations there were several mentions of 'the distance limit'. Presumably they meant the 450km daily limit for large, single-manned, non-rigid vehicles laid down in Regulation 543/69. But the same regulation removes the 450km limit from vehicles fitted with and using a tachograph and since tachographs have been compulsory in Britain for nearly three years, the limit is effectively dead. None of the drivers on television seemed to know this.
The drivers were uncertain about an even more crucial matter — the circumstances in which they could lose their licences. One driver seemed to think that 'they' (unspecified, but — for once — not the EEC) would not take away a driver's licence because 'they' would have to support the driver and his family while he was out of work. The other drivers disagreed, but they were all unsure of their ground. None had any concept of a law which tries to offer some protection both to the general public and to the lorry driver.
Yet the Department of Transport has just produced a new version of its pamphlet on hgv driver licensing. Like the new operative licensing guide recently praised on these pages by Keith Vincent (CM, June 2) it is a great improvement on the earlier version. It is much more detailed, and the language and the presentation are clearer. And, astonishingly, it is still free. Someone at the DTp has clearly put a lot of time and effort into drafting it, but so far as the television drivers are concerned he was wasting his time.
It would be easy to blame the drivers, but full-time managers in road transport find it difficult enough to keep up with the torrent of legislation and other official publications. The nature of their occupation makes it even more difficult for drivers to do this.
The RHA sent a copy of the DTp's 0-licensing guide to every member. Should not the drivers' unions do the same with the new hgv licence guide? — or transport managers get copies for their own drivers? The drivers on television were certainly not unique in their uncertainty.
Perhaps the most depressing thing to emerge from the discussion was the allegation that drivers normally had to wait seven hours when making deliveries to a nationally-known detergent manufacturer.
It is impossible to comment on this without investigating the truth of the allegations. But it seems probable that there are regular long delays, even if their length and frequency were exaggerated. Let us hope that management on both sides — haulier and customer — saw the programme and are taking the appropriate steps. If the customer cannot speed things up the haulier should at least check that the rate he is charging reflects the full costs of the delays.
It is obviously difficult for someone involved in road transport to judge how the programme will have affected the attitude of a non-involved member of the public towards the industry — my own reaction is that it has probably helped for it portrayed drivers as normal human beings trying to do a difficult job. But although they showed themselves to be conscious of their responsibilities they did not try to present themselves as angels. One admitted that his points total was in the danger zone of disqualification. That probably struck a sympathetic chord in a number of motorists' breasts.