OPINIONS ON MOTOR VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION.*
Page 12
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
2.—Sir George Gibb, Late Chairman of the Road Board.
THE VIEWS of Sir George Gibh as regards the importance of road transport are peculiarly interesting inasmuch as he has had almost a 'unique opportunity of gaining inside knowledge, equally as regards railways and as regards road , traffic. Before he .became chairman of the Road Board, he was, in turn, director of the -North-Eastern Railway and chairman of the Metropolitan and Tube Railways, During the greater part of ' his career he has been intimately connected with railway management. His special study of road traffic, on the other hand, probably may be accurately taken to have be gun with his appointment to the Road Board and has, therefore, been of comparatively short duration. As a qualified and successful solicitor he has brought an exact and clear legal mind to bear upon the problems with which he so frequently has had to deal. In his capacity as chairman of the Road -Board Sir George Gibb had the power of allocating very considerable funds for the purpose of road improvement. Rather over threequarters of the 'grants made with his authority were for improvement in road crusts. These grants were made not only on the strength of the actual traffic carried, but with due regard to probable future traffic. In his opinion the stanWard of work is settled with reference to future need, and on the principle that the road must be free to all lands of traffic and made fit. to perform its function in this respect. Sir George is not of the opinion that local authorities are in general prejudiced, but he con.: siders that they incline towards a tendency to generalize on insufficient data with which, owing to local circumstances, they are perhaps unduly impressed.
He confiders that no system of road improvement will work satisfactorily unless it treats road traffic as a living, changing, growing organism and provides for watchful and continuous adjustment between the exercise of public rights on the highway, which _ must be universal ; the satisfaction of public requirements, which must be promptly and amply met, and
the protection of the legitimate interests of road user, road maintainers and vehicle manufacturers.
We would draw the special attention of 'our readers to the words " watchful " and "continuous." They represent a realization of the fact that any order bearing upon the use and construction of motor vehicles can only be, in a sense, tentative. It does
not follow that, because an order is right at one time, it will continue to be -right. The .unusual in traffic may become the usual. It must not be prevented fran doing so by undue restriction.
Another interesting opinion held by Sir George Gibb is that, while the manufacturer of commercial vehicles and the man who wants to use those vehicles have somewhat different interests, yet they are really more or less the same. Evidently, he con siders that their interests may be regarded more readily as being identical than as being opposite. Here we seem to have clear support of the view that
it is not impossible or unreasonable that manufacturers and users should pull togetlTer in pursuancc-of a common policy.
The pedestrian must, of course, have his rights protected as a legitimate road user. This principle has had great effect in many cases in leading to road widenings, the element of danger to the pedestrian 'being often the determining factor.
Sir George considers that the traffic upon our highways is no longer a local ques tion, but has become a national question. The factor of general public interest in road transport has enormously in.
creased. There is a clanger of those in authority harapering the development of vehicular traffic in order to preserve the privileges or the interests of
the road maintainers. The road system. is there for use, and anything which unduly limits its use and the full benefit which the public can obtain from it, is objectionable in • principle.
However the subject of roads and road transport be approached, the enquiry in evitably ends in the alternative of whether we shall proceed in the direction of strengthening and improving road crusts or in the opposite direction of re stricting the development of motor traffic on roads. The true direction of policy should be towards strengthening and improving roads to make them fit for traffic and not towards
,uevising excessive restrictions upon the design. of vehicles and their right to exist upon the roads.
This view, be believes, is shared by local authorities, but their support is watered down by the fact that they have a grievance on the ground that the financial burden of the traffic is thrown to an excessive extent upon the local ratepayer. This does not affect the main principle already laid down that restrictions. on modern traffic shall be kept within the narrowest limits: Viewing ihe problem broadly, the question of the cast of making the roads suited to modern circum stances presents no serious difficulty. The local sur veyor, grappling with the special problem of the particular road, is apt to imagine that the comprehensive problem is more difficult than it really is, and that its solution involves greater expenditure than it really does.
As regards the actual construction of road crusts, there is no one method that can inevitably be accepted as the best. What is best depends on many circumstances, including climate and soil. Great
progress has been made a late years, but the experimental stage in road construction is not yet passed.
Water-bound macadam will Continue to be best for the greatest mileage of roads in the country but, where traffic exceeds a certain density, it becomes ineffective and costly whether that traffic be heavy or light. Naturally, where a substantial volume of heavy motor traffic uses a road, the standard of strength of that road must be higher than that necessary where such traffic is absent.
Nevertheless, if a large volume of light motor traffic nses any particular road, it is doubtful whether the additional burden of heavy motor traffic increases the expenditure advisable on reconstruction and subsequent maintenance. A road that is in good condition for a considerable volume of light motor traffic will not take any harm from a considerable—though not excessive—volume of heavy motor traffic: Any Ma
, portant road must be made fit for light motor traffic, and as such it becomes fit for industrial motor traffic at the same time.
In-earlier days, great objections were raised against the lighter types of motor traffic, but these objections have largely disappeared, because public interest has prevailed over the objectors. No one now thinks of imposing greater restrictions_ on light motor traffic, although we all recognize that this traffic unquestionably involves increase of expenditure on the road and the necessity for further road improvements. Nowadays, the suggested restrictions on light motor traffic simply aim at securing the safety and protection of the pedestrian
There is a particularly strong case for refraining from imposing restrictions on public-service motor vehicles. The motorbus is valuable from many pmts of view. It assists movements in the central parts of towns, where it is the only feasible system for use on the roads. it connects the central parts with the suburbs. It enables new suburban districts to be opened up and it develops building by the establishment of pioneer routes. Finally, it serves holiday and Sunday traffic, and so affords an immense boon to great numbers of the working classes". Sir George considers that London has now better facilities for urban transit than any other city in the world, and that this is largely due to the rapid development of the motor omnibus traffic. The considerations that have carried weight in Lekdon should carry equal weight in and around other cities.
It is equally important that restrictions on public motor services in rural districts should be avoided. In expressing this view, Sir George Gibb speaks with considerable authority, having studied . the question of pa,sseager traffic in country districts for many years, when an official of the North Eastern Railway. His conclusion is that a frequent service is required for the public, but railway companies cannot provide it because its provision dbes not and eould not pay on country branches.
The case for heavy commercial traffic is not quite so strong, but it would be a suicidal policy to do anything to hamper that traffic seriously. The one big step. that might justifiably be taken would be in the direction of encouraging the use of rubber tyres on every type of commercial motor vehicle.