OPINIONS
Page 49
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
QUERIES
SHOULD THE BASIS OF VEHICLE TAXATION BE CHANGED?
[5441] I can never understand the attitude of the numerous operators who are for ever attacking the present method of taxing goods vehicles on unladen weight: I notice there was a further letter on the subject in your issue dated September 2.
Surely it cannot be denied that the present system has led to very efficient and light-weight vehicles being produced ; and that were it not for this method of taxation there would undoubtedly still be thousands of the old solid-tyred war-time " land crabs" rumbling about the roads, carrying about 5 tons and weighing 6 tons or more, with consequent obstruction to traffic and damage to buildings. That this is still so can he seen in many European countries not affected by similar regulations.
Apart from this, there is the undoubted fact that any change in the system of vehicle rates would be for the worse. S.J.B. Sanderstead.
PRAISE FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVERS.
[5442] I have just returned from a delightful motor tour of Cornwall, and would like to place on record my great appreciation of the extreme courtesy shown by every lorry driver I encountered on the road.
By their signals, often prolonged over long stretches of road, they made overtaking dead easy, eliminating all risk ; and, indeed, some acted almost as mobile traffic directors.
It made motoring so much more enjoyable, and I thank them all for adding to the pleasure of my holiday.
London, W.14. R.R.
MORE "FISHING" BY THE RAILWAYS?
[5443] The majority of carriers' A licences was considered for the first renewal two years ago and this autumn we are faced with a similar position, except for the fact that many of us are hoping that the grant will be for five years.
In view of this, I would like to draw your particular attention to the framing of an " objection" by one of the railway companies. It may amount to quite a lot and should serve as a warning to those who believe that their own applications will slip through as smoothly as before :—
". . . and the objection is also directed towards ascertaining (the italics are mine) what is the normal sphere of the applicant's activities."
This " objection " is directed against the application of a contractor who has been established for over 20 years and is operating a substantial fleet. Naturally, he is surprised at this new angle of attack :as he has always interpreted his rights as a public carrier in accordance with Section 2 (2) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. Are the railways resorting to " fishing " tactics of a more pernicious character than hitherto or is this an attempt to eliminate as many operators of A licences as possible in favour of themselves and a handful of " combines " in which they have more than a passing
interest? E. H. B. PALMER. London, S.W.1.
ARE MODERN LIGHT VEHICLES .UNROADWORTHY ?
[5444] In a recent road-test report you give the total weight of the vehicle tested as 6 tons 81 cwt., disposed as to F.A.W., 1 ton 161 cwt. ; and R.A.W., 4 tons 12 cwt. Apparently the vehicle was not loaded to guaranteed capacity, as that is given as 7 tons
gross with 32 x 6 T.T. tyres, making the F.A.W:
roughly 1 ton 19 cwt. and the R.A.W. 5 tons 1 cwt. As the load capacity of a 32 x 6 T.T. tyre is only 17i cwt., it will be obvious that the vehicle is under tyred, a feature not confined to one manufacturer, as similar examples can be quoted; nevertheless, it results in the excellent theory in your tyre articles by L.V.B. to become so much "piffle," and the maintenance engineer to tear his hair.
Incidentally, this was one of my points of contention in the overloading controversy of a year ago with my worthy opponent, Mr. G. V.P. Irwin, and it has not yet been removed after another year's progress. I am corroborated by the Traffic Commissioners' reports for last year, those for practically every area commenting on the lighter-type vehicle.
Admittedly, the manufacturers are not wholly to blame. How crazy the whole system is can be seen from the fact that unroadworthy vehicles suggest liability to accident, which is a major problem of the day, because manufacturers are debarred by very obvious economic reasons of operation from turning out vehicles with a much greater margin of safety. Possibly the correct way of overcoming the difficulty would be to legislate for the manufacturers, but then I am forgetting that road vehicles are a necessity, even
to railways. A. R. WILSON. Scotstou n , Glasgow.
FAIR PLAY FOR THE COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER.
[5445] My attention has been directed to an article, under the title "Fair Play for the Commercial Traveller" which appeared in your issue dated August 12. On behalf of the United Commercial Travellers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland (U.K.C.T.A.) Incorporated, I thank you for drawing the attention of your readers to this subject, but, in the interests of strict accuracy, I deem it advisable to correct some of your contributor's statements. These tend to give an incorrect interpretation of the Regulations, issued by the Minister of Transport, in June, 1036, following an interview, which a deputation from this Association had with the Minister.
The statement "Should a traveller elect to carry his samples in a private car . . . under a private licence he must dump his samples into the back of it, on the floor and on top of the cushions' is wholly erroneous, because, under the Regulations to which reference has been made, and which your contributor criticizes later in his article, permission is given to a commercial traveller to insert a, rail or rails in the roof of his saloon car, or to build a temporary rack over the seat and squab, the better to carry his samples.
I do not know what authority your correspondent has for asserting that " He—a commercial traveller—may not insert into the car a partitioned box or shelf fastened or :unfastened" (the italics are mine) as I know of no Act or Regulation which makes such an action illegal. The Finance Act makes provision that there shall be no "structural adaptation" of any private vehicle, but surely the insertion of an on fastened partitioned box cannot be regarded as a structural alteration.
I respectfully disagree with your contributor's contention that the wording of the Regulation, of June, 1936. "has proved misleading, mischievous and practically abortive of benefit to travellers." In my experience as secretary of the largest organized body of commercial travellers in the country, the exact opposite has proved to be the case.
I must also join issue when he writes that the Regulation "is not even intelligently worded," as such a statement, combined with the paragraph immediately following it, proves that he, himself, has failed to appreciate the real meaning of the Regulation.
It would appear to the writer that the object of your contributor is to prepare the ground for successful agitation against compulsory use of C licences by light vans, and if I be correct in my deduction, he will be interested to learn that such agitation would be contrary to the expressed resolutions of this Association, both through its executive council and at its annual conference.
For The United Commercial Travellers' Association, W. J. LOVELL, General Secretary. London, W.C.1.
SHOULD NEW OR OLD VEHICLES BE ROAD TESTED?
[5446] Are your road tests of commercial vehicles of any real use to the haulier and driver? In my opinion these tests, as they are at present carried out, do not convey the right kind of information and are not critical enough. For example—you invariably take out on test a brand-new model ; surely a new machine in these enlightened days should steer well, ride well, brake well, etc_ The test should be when the machine has done about 60,000 miles in the hands of the average user, that is, in the case of the 24-ton (unladen) overloaded, over-driven and under-maintained type.
Three years ago I drove a certain 3-ton lorry for 60,000 miles: I am just recovering from gastritis contracted thereby. In your test of the same make you described the cab as comfortable and roomy, and stated how the maker had studied the driver's comfort. As I bumped and rattled over every slight pothole in the road and every time I hit my head on the cab roof and rebounded onto the lower portion of my anatomy how wished I had that designer in the cab with me. If 1316 your tester had had such a run, how he would have changed his views.
I suggest that you carry out the test as at present, then have a really long run on a privately owned vehicle that has done 50,000 or 60,000 miles and issue really critical reports on both vehicles. This is the information, which, I suggest, both haulier and driver want to know.
The 3-ttinner I am driving at present has given fairly googl service for 60,000 miles, but the brakes are terrible. In your report you described them as of new design and good, which no doubt they were when tested, but how long do they remain good?
As the manufacturer hardly ever comes into contact with the actual user your tests become the intermediary between the two, and any faults pointed out by you and rectified by the maker will have the blessing of thousands of hauliers and drivers.
You are not critical enough; give it to them hot and strong ; any praise they may require they will find in their increased sales. Remember that the hauliers are the best customers.
Wishing your journal every success.
Hull. R. B. RICHARDSON.
[We thank Mr. Richardson for his interesting comments, criticisms and suggestions. The greatest difficulty in carrying out such a comparative test is that most of Our runs are on new models and it would be impossible to defer giving an opinion until examples had achieved, say, 60,000 miles. By the time that mileage had been run the particular type of chassis might have been modified or even superseded. Another point is that, as so much of the performance of a used vehicle depends upon its maintenance, the results of the test would be rather more to the' credit or discredit of the operator than to the maker. To obtain reliable data of this kind the average of a large number of trials with different vehicles in the hands of a variety of users would need to be undertaken. We may add that the real effects of our road tests arc not always apparent, for in certaincases our reports have been such that the makers have withdrawn offending chassis for alterations to be made, in which cases it is only fair that the published results should be those we obtain with the models as they are to be marketed.—En.]
A QUOTATION FOR LONG-DISTANCE HAULAGE.
[5447] I have the opportunity of a contract for haulage for a distance of 250 miles for the return journey, but first I must submit an estimate.
For your information, therefore, I give the following particulars: Haulage to be a daily journey of 250 miles, loading and unloading of van to be done by the firm in question. Vehicle will be 3-tonner.
Van drivers to be supplied by me, also all expenses of running will be undertaken. Load carried, approximately 5 tons. Will you please quote as near as possible inclusive price to be paid to me as contractor, also what wage should I pay my driver?
Cardiff.
[You do not, in your letter, state how many journeys per week you are going to run on this contract. In what follows I have assumed that you complete five round journeys per week. It may not be possible for you to do this work and comply with the law as regards drivers' hours, unless you employ two drivers. Assuming that to be the case, your charges should total not less than £36 per week, out of which you will pay RIT 10s. per week wages. In the event of it being possible for you to do this work without employing a second driver, then your charge should be £32 per week, out of which you would pay £3 15s. as wages.—S.T.R.]