OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
Auxiliary Gearboxes for Fords.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2139] Sir —With reference to the recent correspondence that has appeared in your columns with regard to the "great danger ". that is supposed to exist with all other types of auxiliary gearboxes excepting the super-Ford, we might state that we have had -Warlord gearboxes in our Ford tonners for some considerable time, and have never even imagined this danger to exist. We have never once had our drivers report missing their gears, and, as we do not make a practice of keeping a particular driver on one car all the time, it sometimes occurs that drivers who have never handled the Warford are placed upon a car so fitted, and we have not had a complaint from them.
We have had complete satisfaction with the Warlord boxes for over a year now, and although we have i no interest whatever n the sale of these boxes, or in their manufacture, we feel that, we should give praise where praise is due.—Yours faithfully, DARWEN MOTOR CO,
London, E.C. 1. JACK DARWEX, Manager.
Fines at Henley-on-Thames.
• The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2140] Sir,—We should like to take this •opportunity of informing you that one of our drivers, amongst others, was fined 25 for exceeding the speed limit at Henley-on-Thames recently, welloutside the Town area, and as this is the first occasion that any of our drivers have been fined, we consider it is a very, heavy fine for a first offence of this description.
We feel sure you would be glad to know of this, with a view to warning others who may be passing through thin riverside district.—Yours faithfully,,
p.p. WHITBREAD AND CO., LTD.,
T. D. SMITH, Depot Manager.
Excessive Fines in Hampshire.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2141] Sir,—As a regular reader of the paper I would like to ask you to allow me to make my protest against the apparent favouritism which is being shown to drivers of private motorcars in the matter of offences for exceeding the speed limit here in Hampshire.
I am sending you cuttings from cur local phper, and you will see that at Ea,stleigh recently a lady driver of a motorcar, who was summoned for driving in a manner dangerous to the public at a speed of over 35 m.p.h., was fined 22 for that offence. In contrast to this, there was a whole batch of drivers of heavy lorries summoned to appear before the same Petty Sessions a few days ago. The police constable, giving
evidence, said, I and another police constable were out timing heavy cars on the day in question.' The net result of their operations was a haul of six victims, each of whom was fined 25, although there were considerable differences in the speeds recorded against the drivers.
The private motorist, it will be seen, gets off with a fine of 23 and costs, whereas the driver working for his living has to pay 25, which is almost a fortnight's wages in this district. I leave it to you to judge which was likely to be the more dangerous : the offence of the private motorist or of one of the heavy vehicle drivers.
I should also like to ask why the police should be allowed to trap all heavy-vehicle drivers and allow private motorists to go scot-free on the day on 'which the police were operating. I venture to think that' if the so-called light cars had to keep to their 20 m.p.h. we should have an outcry against the present, speed limits. It seems to me that there is still "one law for the rich, etc." Surely, during the time the trap set by the police was in operation in order to time heavy cars, a few private cars "barged through" unsuspectingly I—Yours faithfully,
Winchester. HEAVY-VEHICLE DRIVER.
Rear Lights on Cycles.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2142] Sir,—May I be permitted to comment on F. Stone's letter (No. .2136) in your issue of March 27th, wherein he refers to the question of rear lights on cycles, etc.? Mr. Stone sayshe is a "cyclist and motor driver." From his argument, I am of opinion that he is more of a daylight cyclist than a night motorist. He says that no motor lorry should be allowed on the road at night without adequate lights." Quite right ; I agree. But why make the motor lorry carry bright headlights to search for the elusive cyclist? . It is hardly fair, I think, to call a motor lorry driver a "road hog" because he advocates a rear light being carried on cycles. After all, he only wants to see where the cyclist is, so as to avoid him. Anyway, the average motor lorry driver is not on the road at night for pleasure, as the cyclist usually is.
To sum up the position, the cyclist should be very grateful to the motor vehicles, for they are responsible for better roads by the contribution of some 12 million pounds per annum to their improvement. which the cyclist is allowed _toenjoy without being called upon to pay a cent. I should like to see cyclists taxed, as is the custom on the Continent, and every vehicle, including cycles, to be compelled to show a rear light after dusk.—Yours faithfully, Thornton Heath. f F. B. DAVIES.
Unjust Taxation.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2142] Sir,—In his letter in your issue for March 27th, Mr. E. W. Lovely, of Eastbourne made a good suggestion. I really believe that we must educate the public somewhat on this question of a fairer method of taxing motor vehicles, and something that is terse and to the point displayed in the windows of showrooms, garages, and repair depots throughout the country would help to inform the public on what is undoubtedly a vital matter. I have tried in my small way to enlighten friends, who have no interest in or knowledge of motor matters, upon the unfairness of motor taxation methods, and have been astonished to hear from each, almost without exception, some such remarks as, " Oh ! you motor people, you have appropriated the roads with your cars, your vans, your lorries, and your chars-à-bancs : you can afford to pay for it!" It is not easy to explain to these people that it is the inequality of payment—one man paying 270 tax on a bus and being able to keep it in regular service throughout the year, covering, we will say, 30,000 miles, and another paying the same tax and only being able to run his bus for three days a week and covering about 6,000 miles in the year.
All that we are asking for is fairness in taxation, and that is best provided by payment upon,the fuel
consumed.—Yours faithfully,
A SMALL Bus OWNER.