OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ROAD TRANSPORT NEGLECTED IN PARTY PROGRAMMES.
[9670] On scrutinizing the election programme of the three political parties, I could not find any reference to road-transport affairs.
I would have thought, in view of the wide publicity which has been given, that at least one of the parties would have been prepared to include in its programme a scheme whereby many of the tyrannical rules, laws, regulations, orders, restrictions, excessive taxation, etc., etc., would have been reviewed and remodelled on lines giving road transport (including motoring generally) a fair and British chance to conduct its business.
In view of the absence of any such plan, a number of very important questions arises, amongst them being (I) Has any political party been approached to include such a scheme? (2) If it has, and a negative answer was given, or if it has never been asked, was it not possible to " field" independent candidates who would fight whole-heartedly for the greatest industry of modern time? (3) Does the omission of assistance by any of the "big three" indicate that apathy among road users is the sole reason? (4) By not making a gigantic national fight at this General Election, is not the roadtransport industry inviting another government to impose anything with which it cares to hamper the industry so that protected competitors can score and receive every advantage?
I must confess I have a great deal to learn, and my education in road-transport matters would be considerally improved if someone could give me answers to the
foregoing questions. ' R. FRASER-SMITH. Cardiff.
AN APPRECIATION OF THE FREE LECTURES GIVEN BY S.T.R.
[4671] Many thanks for the privilege of hearing " S.T.R." give his lecture on costs at our meeting in October. I was much impressed with the clear and straightforward way in which he presented his method of arriving at the cost of running various types of vehicle. It was not at all complicated and could be understood by any haulage contractor.
The attendance at the meeting was disappointing and those who were unable to be present missed a golden opportunity. I am sure that all present learnt a lot, and were further enlightened on many points regarding which they at first seemed doubtful when " S.T.R. " answered their questions at the end of the lecture. Your Tables of Costs were much in demand.
I hope that many more meetings of this kind can be arranged and that hauliers will not miss the valuable opportunity afforded through your kindness.
Wakefield. GEo. E. GILBEY.
WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION?
[4672] While reading a recent issue of your journal I noticed a reference to a driver who has had his licence suspended as the result of a slight accident. The object appears to be to resider unemployed hard-working, lawabiding citizens, known to the general public as lorry drivers and to many vehicle users as the most courteous men on the road.
A little time ago a police ambulance and a corporation bus collided at a street corner, ripping out one side of the ambulance. Judging by public opinion, this was a case of carelessness, but shall we hear of either party 'being hauled to a police court or having his licence
suspended? Not likely; they are both in the same family!
Denby Dale.
[4673] In the leading article of your issue dated October II, you refer to a suggested scheme to equalize road and rail rates as a step towards transport coordination. You further indicate that such a scheme would be impracticable on the grounds that the roads would be flooded out with C-licence vehicles.
This was certainly not the intention, nor do I think it would be the result, of the scheme. Under existing restrictions, whereby C-licence holders are prohibited from carrying traffic other than their own, it is improbable that there can be a serious increase in competition with the public road carrier (who is free to obtain adequate and regular loading for his vehicles from any sourceY or with the railways.
With the present undoubted tendency for road operating costs to increase, the average trader is likely to find the cost of operating his 'own vehicles uneconomical, except under unusually favourable conditions. No ancillary user is prepared to pay more for his trans. port simply for the sake of running his own vehicles, unless by doing so he can obtain better service to compensate for his increased cost. It is up to the public carrier, whether by road or by rail, to provide such service, and there can be little doubt that, given the opportunity of effective co-ordination of public transport, it would be forthcoming at a price sufficiently attractive to induce most traders to abstain from employing their own road fleets.
There will, of course, be cases, as there are to-day, where, owing to the conditions in particular industries, C-licence holders could run their own fleets at a cost lower than that of public services by road or rail. These, however, are, and would be likely to remain, the 'exception rather than the rule, and surely incapable of "congesting the roads from end to end of the country."
As you say, the i.!xistence of the ancillary user pro-. vides a valuable safeguard against possible exploitation by the public carrier, and it is therefore in the general interest that his position should be maintained so far as possible.
Any scheme designed to place public transport, both , by road and rail, on a sound financial basis must be open to criticism by individual interests, but it seems premature to condemn out of hand the principle of equalization of rates, which may well provide the only Solution of this problem, which will avoid arbitrary restrictions of the rights of both carriers and traders.
London, W.14. R. 0. SQUAREY.
HOW THE HAULIER IS BEING RESTRICTED.
[4674] I am a haulage contractor in a pmall way with an increasing business, but have only two lorries, one with an A licence and the other a contract licence. For some months to come I have enough orders to carry out to keep another two lorries on the road.
Early this year I made an application to the Licensing Authority at Newcastle-on-Tyne for the variation of an A licence by the addition of one extra vehicle. At a hearing in Carlisle held in Ma' the L.N.E.R. objected and I was refused a licence. The railway representative stated that the railway could do 'the haulage. I may here state that it had been tried at the work but found unsatisfactory.
However, to keep my two sons employed I obtained a contract licence, which meant that the lorry was travelling one way always .empty. I may add that I do nothing but long-distance work and, since June 7, this contract-licence lorry has covered over 1,000 miles per week; hut even with this extra licence I am unable to complete all my orders.
I made another application, which was heard on September 4, also at Carlisle. The railway still objected, and the case was adjourned until October 5 and heard again in Carlisle. I produced further evidence but once more, despite this, the case was adjourned. I again produced further evidence of work that I had done and payments made to other hauliers who assisted me to carry out my contracts.
At the final hearing, held at Carlisle on October 26, Sir John Maxwell gave his decision on the grounds that, while he found that my tonnage had increased, he also found that the L.N.E.R. tonnage had decreased since I started business as a haulier; he therefore would not grant a licence for an additional vehicle.
Is this not persecution? J. A. PRATT.
SUSPENDING A DRIVING LICENCE BECAUSE IT IS HELD BY ANOTHER COURT.
[4675] I have read with great interest your articles relating to the persecution of commercial drivers. May I bring to your notice the following case? I have been a "heavy" driver for some II years and my only offences have been of a minor character, i.e., speeding and overloading. While driving my employer's car on two occasions I exceeded the 30 m.p.h. at 12.30 a.m. and 3.30 a.m, on a double-track road. The first time meant a fine, plus endorsement. After that I exceeded the limit with my lorry; that meant another endorsement. This happened again for driving at 25 m.p.h. I appeared and defended the case, but did not succeed. An endorsement was ordered„ and I handed in my licence. This was kept in court.
Two days afterwards I appeared on the second of the two charges mentioned before, i.e., 35 m.p.h. at 3.30 a.m on a double-track road. I had little success, as another endorsement was ordered, and as I could not produce a licence I was suspended from driving. This lost me over 30 hours' work at Is. 5d. per hour. Although I explained to the magistrates that the licence was in another court, and had proof of it, they would not listen. They then addressed me—a man whose only " crimes" are trying to do a little bit more B40
for a good employer—the general trend of the remarks being : "You are going on a down-hill track, and one of these days you will be pulled up with a jerk." Had I been a pick-pocket I might not have minded, and the remarks made would have been suitable.
Why not have paid magistrates instead of the local butcher or political servant? Why should we have to pay to have a case proved against us? Why should an innocent man have to plead guilty in the hope of getting a smaller fine? Why not leave the heavy drivers alone and get after crazy fools who will cut corners and try to overtake at dangerous points?
The answer to the last question is very 'easy. It is easier to twist 21 m.p.h. into 24 m.p.h. than to run the
risk required to catch the fast car. Also, the commercial man is prepared to pay, and has -got to pay.
Birmingham. HARASSED HEAVY.
CAN THE POLICE COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF AUTOMATIC RECORDS?
[4676] Being a regular reader of The Commercial Motor, I shall be pleased if you can give me an answer to the following question, which has been discussed at various times.
Can a chart off a recording clock be asked for by the police or a traffic examiner so that it can be compared with a record sheet which the driver is bound to carry on his person? Some people say it cannot, as it is the private property of the owner, whilst others say it can be asked for by the police or examiner.
Sherwood. PTJZZLED.
[As there is no compulsion to carry a recorder, the driver is not, compelled to give evidence against himself by producing a private chart.—En.] THE TIME LIMIT ON A LICENSING APPEAL.
[4677] In the face of railway opposition I was granted an A licence on July 30, and received notice of appeal from said railway company, dated September 5.
I understand that notice of appeal should be given within one month and this appears to be five days overdue. I may mention that the granting of the licence was published in Applications and Decisions dated August 8.
London, N.W.10. W.J.B.
[Regulation 23 (1) of The Goods Vehicles (Licences and Prohibitions) Provisional Regulations, 1934, provides that every appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the Licensing Authority shall be lodged with the Tribunal not later than one month after the date of publication of the issue of "Applications and Decisions" in which the decision appealed against i's published. Paragraph 3 of the same regulation provides that a copy of the appeal shall be sent to the applicant at the same time as the appeal is sent to the Tribunal, or as soon thereafter as may be. It is, therefore, clear that the notice of appeal which has been served upon you was not out of time.—En.]