LETTERS to the editor

10th November 1967, Page 179

10th November 1967

Page 179

Page 179, 10th November 1967 — LETTERS to the editor

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

It's protection against rate cutting

YOUR correspondent's letter ("I agree about private objectors", CM October 20) shows a complete lack of understanding of the present licensing system.

All of us who are in haulage have had to face the rigours of a public inquiry and have been objected to. This system is meant to protect the existing hauliers against unscrupulous rate cutters. It also protects the rate cutter against himself.

If the Minister's proposals become law, Mr. Tippett will soon realize that the world of "dog eat dog" is not a happy hunting ground.

No doubt his objectors also realize that objections cost money— their money—hard-earned money, which they are now spending to protect the businesses which they have built up over the years. F. G. HEALE, "Another Exeter haulier."

Three system braking

WE ARE ANXIOUS to confirm our interpretation of the 1967 Road Safety Act.

Because of these regulations which apply from January 1 1968 we have been creating a three-system braking—not just on new vehicles but also for those in operation, irrespective of age, to enable them to comply with the suggested 1972 regulations. Of course, by that time existing vehicles, no doubt, will be off the road.

According to our interpretation of previous road traffic regulations vehicles required a service brake and secondary brake; in most cases it was a handbrake in case the service system failed.

We acknowledge that most of the service systems, in order to meet the 1972 requirements, occasionally have to be boosted. But we have discarded the handbrake and fitted a separate system operating on at least 50 per cent of the wheels, utilizing the "dead man's handle" as the control for the secondary system and retaining the handbrake as the parking brake. According to our interpre

tation it has 'to hold the vehicle either unladen or fully laden on a 1 in 6.25 gradient, after it has been brought to rest on either of the two systems.

Customers tell us that vehicle examiners making on-the-spot checks are not prepared. to accept this forward thinking and forward fitting to meet new regulations. It appears they will not accept the "dead man's handle" as an alternative system in emergency use when the footbrake (in the past termed the handbrake) has failed, but that they insist on trying to obtain immediate readings on Tapley meters or their equivalent by the use of the handbrake.

Can you, Sir, let us have your opinion on whether or not we are correct in our thinking? Or are we too forward in fitting equipment that will give the safety which the Bill requires prior to its enforcement date?

G. WHITWELL HARPER, Director, Primrose Group Sales, Lancs. Mr. Harper's interpretation of the Act seems correct to us, but this would need confirmation from the Ministry—which is naturally reluctant to interpret its own legislation.—Ed.

Two seconds flat to collect a fare?

MR. R. TOOKE (CM, October 20), complains of suspect London Transport statistics regarding o.m.o. seat capacity. In his letter he quotes the figure of 200 passengers per hour on a four-mile journey (o.m.o.) out of Aldeburgh. Where can they go in four miles—Leiston!

From his own figures 40 passengers get on at one stop, and each one boards, pays, and receives a ticket and change in two seconds flat. Perhaps they all ask for a 2s fare and tender a florin?

This is obviously no basis from which to attack London Transport's calculations which must cover all traffic densities and conditions not just the perfect A to B route with the same standing load all the way.

J. G. SQUIRRELL, Reigate.