AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

LORRY DRIVER OF THE YEAR

15th July 1966, Page 50
15th July 1966
Page 50
Page 50, 15th July 1966 — LORRY DRIVER OF THE YEAR
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords :

STOKE ROUND

Heavies first by request

Ar the Stoke-on-Trent round on Sunday the classes were taken in reverse order to cater for the many drivers of heavier vehicles who had requested the changeover to enable them to watch a larger part of the contest as spectators. The scheme worked well, apparently to no one's dissatisfaction, and gave a fillip to the earlier stages of the manoeuvring as well as increasing the number of knowledgeable onlookers at the test of the smaller vehicles.

By analysis it was a disappointing day. But, as usual, the contest "went like clockwork" (thanks in large measure to the keenness and long experience of the manoeuvring test marshals). Drivers were enthusiastic and the prizegiving was completed by 3.30 p.m.

The day was disappointing because only 96 competitors took part in the events-of which 46 were entered by local companies and undertakings-compared with approximately 140 last year, and no class winner was penalized a lesser number of points than the leading competitor in the same class in 1965.

Last year, S. A. Wyatt (John Joule and Sons Ltd.) won Class A with the loss of 57 points and won "the best driver of the day" prize on points. This year he was urtplaced with 277 points and the winner, K. R. Barr (Fisher and Ludlow Ltd.), was penalized 174 points. The driver who came nearest to equalizing with the 1965 class winner, D. Jordan (Ind Coope Ltd.), lost 129 points in Class D compared with a penalty of 113 points awarded against A. Hunt (Fisher and Ludlow Ltd.) last year. A 1966/1965 ratio of around 2 to 1 was common.

The closeness of the first three competitors in a number of classes suggests, however, that the rotary low standard this year might be the "kind of thing that happens" rather than an indication of worsening abilities. In Class C, for example, S. Elkin (Stoke-onTrent Cleansing Department) and S. Upton (NCB) both lost 200 points (Elkin was declared the winner by virtue of his zero loss on the route test compared with Upton's loss of 1 point), whilst the third man G. Bendy (Seddon (Stoke) ) was penalized 201 points.

In Class E(2) the winner, B. Stacey (Ind Coope Ltd.), lost 186 points; the second man, T. Naylor (Vic Hallam Ltd.), was penalized 187 points; and number three, E. Rastery (Petrofina (GB) Ltd.), lost 189 points.

For the second year running Fisher and Ludlow Ltd. won the team award and it is notable that the team included two drivers, A. Hunt and R. E. Hewitt, who were in the winning team last year. P.A.C.B.


comments powered by Disqus