topic
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Those damned dots
NOTHING SEPARATES communities more than the things at which they laugh. A French or German joke seldom seems funny to the British; and a performance which amuses us will only bore the foreigner. It may therefore just be the Gallic sense of humour which has moved the French to fix the weight limits on incoming vehicles at a level which has to be expressed in two places of decimals.
The axle weight on foreign lorries must not exceed 10.85 tonnes, which is the same as 10.68 tons. French operators will continue to be allowed to go up to their present limit of 13 tonnes (12.79 tons). The British limit of 10 tons is equivalent to 10.16 tonnes. Before Mr John Peyton upset the apple cart, agreement was near on an EEC compromise of 11 tonnes (10.82 tons).
For visitors the gross laden weight under the new French regulations is 38 tonnes (37.4 tons). This is less than the proposed EEC figure of 40 tonnes (39.37 tons), but considerably more than the present British limit of 32 tons (32.51 tonnes). Another complication (or it may be just another of these incomprehensible French jokes) is about the present French limit for Frenchmen. Sometimes it is given as 38 tonnes and at other times as 35 tonnes (34.35 tons).
No doubt the news from France has started a flurry of slide rules and computers in the Department of the Environment. The assumption may be that the French have lowered their sights in deference to their new EEC colleagues. It is just as likely that the gesture is intended to help operators in West Germany and the Benelux countries. They are pleased because they will be able to send vehicles more freely across the long French frontier. As matters stand, British operators will receive no benefit. They must still keep within the present British restrictions.
Although Mr Peyton's stand has won him esteem in his own country, the French have hardly disguised their opinion that the whole debate needs no more than a few bedroom scenes to become a typical farce. The main focus of disagreement has been on axle weights. The Europeans find it difficult to understand why the addition of a mere 16cwt or so to the maximum should have such catastrophic effects, including the expenditure of 1.200m on strengthening roads and bridges.
From countries which have long taken a pride in logical thinking, it may appear that Britain is still groping in the legendary mist where certain numbers and round figures have a magical significance. If we tamely agree to move from 10 to 11, power will go out of the land. A possible compromise is to take to the neutral decimal, and to move instead from 10.16 to 10.85 (or, if this is preferred, from 10 to 10.68). Thus honour is satisfied and the spells of Merlin unbroken.
Until a better explanation is forthcoming, this will have to serve. The next move is up to Mr Peyton. He must revise his estimated f200m, the effect of an axle, weight increase of 0.82 tons, to fit a possible change of no more than 0.68 tons.
The process of decimalization can be taken even further. There are other oddities in the figures thrown up by the ceaseless EEC negotiating machinery. A longstanding example is the proposed 23 per cent as the permitted margin below the maximum to be fixed for transport rates. Although it must be to a large extent an estimate, 23 per cent is the kind of figure that appears to be the result of meticulous and accurate calculation. It would look even more convincing trailing a couple of decimals.
Shared joke ...
More recently there has been the share-out of the Community permits. Entering into the spirit of the EEC, Mr Peyton asked for 358, as though there were exactly that number of applicants queueing up outside the Northern traffic area office. The EEC negotiators had had longer practice at the game. With a perfectly straight face, they reached their decision to give Mr Peyton 99. The test of whether you are a good European is to ask yourself if you think this is funny.
It would have been carrying the joke too far to have taken a leaf out of the book of the shopkeepers and made the grant 99.99. But the Department might have appreciated the opportunity to lighten the situation.
The civil servants were in difficulties. They are said to have received 800 applications (no nonsense about round numbers here) for a total of 20,000 permits. No doubt, since no payment was involved, many people with virtually no qualification put in a claim in much the same spirit as they would accept a free ticket in a sweepstake.
They were not being altogether foolish. Some of the few successful applicants have obtained publicity merely for the possession of a Community permit, although not all of them have produced evidence that they will actually use it.
With so small an allocation compared with the number of mouths waiting to be fed, the Department could hardly help dispensing some rough justice. For the most part also the distribution was kept a private affair. Had there been a fraction of a permit available, a public ballot might have been arranged for it, with press and photographers and a presentation by the Minister.
by Janus