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 
The law of the jungle
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If UK road haulage industry is the most obvious example of the free market in action, why should anyone help inefficient operators remain within it? That question may seem uncharitable, but it is prompted by the preliminary results from the joint RHA/FTA study into whether the government should fund an advisory scheme to improve operators' business performance. Commercial Motors view is unequivocal: it should not. It's not the function of this or indeed any other government to support lame ducks. Any more than it is the function of the government to reduce over-capacity in road transport through punitive taxation. The role of the government should simply be to regulate—and the Lmom fund suggested for spending on the modernisation of the road haulage industry would be better used on more enforcement and new roads. No inefficient haulier should be surprised if he loses work to one who's more efficient—the only mystery is why efficient operators also go under. Probably because they, like the majority of the industry, have allowed the free-market to become a free-for-all. They've allowed the customer to dictate rates when they should have said no. If the government wants a modern, progressive, sustainable industry then it should hire Dr Chester Karras and pay for every haulier to go on one of his Negotiate for Wan-Wirt Results courses—at