OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Government Tractor Auctions.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1638] Sir,—In " Agrimotor Notes" in your issue oi 31st October re the sale of Government tractors at Willesden on 25th September' you state that the prices realized were only 212 to 250 250 being the h ghest figure obtained. I attended this sale, and considered that the machines, on the whole, looked a sorry lot, and if the date of purchase (as down in the catalogue) was correct, it did net speak very well for the drivers who had handled them in service. N meteen of the machines realized over 250 and eight over 2100, the highest price realized being 2145 for lot 36, a "Little Giant," purchased in February', 1918. If one or two mechanics had been In attendance an hour or two before the sale to start the best of the machines up I think that they would have realized their full market value. I myself bought a.25 h.p. machine at the sale at Boston for 245, and on arrival here took it straight off the railway truck on to the land
and into work.—Yorrs faithfully, J. H. 'WILSON. Haxey, near Doncaster.
Road Signs.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1639] Sir,—I feel that I entirely agree with your editorial comment upon " Advertiser's " article in favour of road signs. 1 am an advertiser myself, but I think that, on the whole; the commercial vehicle manufacturer is not an offender in the matter of aggressive road signs. But I like to place myself in the position of the _road user, be he a pleasuro seeker, a chatiffeur or a lorry driver, and to support their wish to be freed from the incubus of blatant declamations. I quite agree with your statement that an advertisement (designed and displayed in good taste, of course) appearing in a place where one would expect and look for advertisements does not offend. At the same time I say let that be done in moderation and in the least offensive way, and in this regard I rather welcome the opportunity which this letter gives me of saying that in common with other regular readers of your journal I have noticed that for some months you have been removing advertisements from amongst the reading ,page and placing them in front and 'at the rear. To my mind you have vastly improved the appearance of.' the paper, rendering it more readable. However, that is by the way.
Blatant road signs and the signs erected beside the railways are extremely annoying--there is no getting away from the fact. The blinking vgns at one time the curse of London and other large places were absolutely irritating, and I honestly doubt if any of these signs ever induce anybody to purchase the advertised articles. Advertising to be effective must be quietly insidious and slowly convincing. That the obtrusive sign does harm is capable of proof, for you will
044
observe either that a man turns his head or eyes /rota the offending announcements or that the eye gets trained to ignore them, So that they are destructive of their own purpose:
I was amused at "Advertiser's " statement that the road signs have become so much part of our everyday life that they have arousedyno protest (except from a few hypercritical people) because they cause no offence. Why, complaints have been rife, and only one's ineptitude has prevented action (except to cast stones and brickbats to damage the signs— which is useless, as the eyesore then becomes all the greater O. Many an absurd scheme has been squelched by public protest—did not some advertiser want to buy some land on a Welsh mountain side there to erect a gigantic advertisement that could be read by scenery lovers across the valley? After-all, good scenery, like good food and good music, is a tonic to the hard worker, whether he work by brain or hand, and an obtrusive advertisement ina, beautiful scene jars as much as does the note from a flat E string of one of the violins in a fine orchestra or the absence of salt in the potatoes.—Yours faithfully, ADVERTISER II.
The Cippenham Scheme and the User.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1640] Sir,—You described the Cippenham scheme in your issue of 31st October as a great W.D. stunt. It seems a hard criticism, but I am afraid as matters are tending that it proves to be quite justified. What occurs to me as being so curious is the attitude of the W.D. as represented by Mr. Macpherson in the House of -Commons. Why so much secrecy, so much opposition to those who seek information, such a disparagement of the offers of manufacturers to do the job, and so much persistence in the scheme when it should be quite obvious that it is not th the taste of the public? The only possible answer is that it is W.D. stunt intended tq provide hundreds of Cl cushy jobs" for men who, doubtful of their ability to make money in ordinary business trading feel that they could make a success of sorts in a concern which has th meet no competition and does not evenneed -to attempt to show a profit. I think you have put your finger on the core of the matter, and 'the whole position should certainly be reviewed by an unbiassed tribunal. But on that tribunal the interests of commercial vehicle users should be repaesented. It is important to us that the motor vehicle industry in the future should be free to grow and expand to the full. Only in that way are we going to get large outputs, cheap production, advance in design -with lower running and maintenance costs. If the W.D. is going to cut into the business of the manufacturers those ideals are never going to be attained. The views of other users on this particular phase of the question should be weledme.—Yours faithfully, TEN YEARS' USER.