AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OPINIONS and QUERIES

16th June 1933, Page 47
16th June 1933
Page 47
Page 48
Page 47, 16th June 1933 — OPINIONS and QUERIES
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?

A Lament at the Apathy of Road Transport Operators.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. • 1.40941 Sir,—I was pleased to see, in your issue dated June 2, an acknowledgment from Mr. Vinter, of the Star Haulage Co., London, of my letter which appeared in your issue of May 19; but I deplore the fact that this is the only one of any shape or form, directly or indirectly, that I have seen, although multitudes of transport-vehicle owners must have been casually, if not extremely interested, but evidently not enough to communicate with me. Even a card to say that my remarks were all wrong would have shown me that someone was more than casually interested, but evidently it is not to be.

Mr. Vinter refers to this as "complacency," but it is more than that, it is "inertia," and the sleepers must be aroused, no time must be lost, or we are lost ourselves.

I have heard on good authority that the increased taxation has the support of the majority of the members of the House of Commons. I ask why? Have they forgotten that it was road transport which provided them with the necessaries of life during the General Strike of 1926? Are they going to allow the Government slowly to strangle this competitive means for transport, and so provide the "powers that be" with a weapon with which to bring the country to its knees at any time? Have all the points for the lightening of the burden on road transport been put before them, and, if so, what have they to say to this human logic, how can they get away from it?

And what of the public, whose opinion really counts? On page 565 in your issue of June 2, in the section devoted to Air Transport, you state, in big type, Publicity Is Needed," but this is not the most important part; you go on to say—" The public must be made to see the advantages." You are, of course, referring to flying, but I like the " must be made" part of it, and I say here that the same remarks should apply to road transport, the public must be made . to see that road transport is necessary to the life of the country, just as water is to human beings, and they must be made to see that it will be fatal to them ultimately if the Government be allowed to oppress road transport.

Now then, owners of commercial vehicles, transport contractors and ancillary users, what about it? Are we to sit by complacently until December 1, and then raise a shout when it is too late? Are we or are we not going to flood our M.P.s with postcard protests until they are made to see reason, as suggested recently by the Co-operative societies?

In the Daily Mail dated June 5, it was stated that the United States Customs Court decided that tax on British coal was illegal. I say, for goodness' sake let

somebody in this country find that it is illegal to tax petrol and fuel oil, and give hard-working people a chance to go ahead unhampered.

Again, am I right when I say that an important official of a past Government stated that if the proceeds from the Road Fund exceeded requirements the tax would be reduced, and when I say that an official in a subsequent Government stated that he could not be held responsible for what his predecessor had said? ' Somebody's predecessor promised Co pay war debts, and that has to be honoured. If this applies to foreigners, it shouldalso apply to us. In conclusion, will some

readers acknowledge this us., and give their own views? J. C. BROOKS. Manchester.

The Incidence of Taxation on Little-used Vehicles.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4095] Sir,—In a recent issue we were given some idea of the new taxation. These increases will be very heavy, and particularly in view of trailers, etc., having to be put on to rubber tyres.

We sincerely hope that when the new taxation does come in we shall be allowed to pay for vehicles as we use them. Take, for instance, our heavy motor tractor, or traction engine. In January of this year we had a job to bring in a boiler, involving 24 hours' travelling on the road.

Nothing further was required from this engine until April, but we had to pay taxation and insurance for the engine while it was standing in the yard—a heavy financial loss.

Now, when we take a boiler out, either for ourselves or any of our customers, the engine may be travelling on the highways for from one day to, maybe, three or four days, and then stand in the mill yard until the boiler is completed and ready for the return journey home.

We have no objection to paying for the locomotive when it is travelling, or is actually on the highways, but we do object to, and simply cannot pay, the heavy taxation when the engine is standing and earning nothing.

Surely the Minister of Transport can devise means to grant us daily permits, such as we used to get by applying to the police, or various cities and county boroughs through which we had to pass.

There is no question of evading this obligation, as we have to declare the load we carry, its dimensions, and trailer particulars (and be fully covered by insurance for third-party risks). We have also to give the proposed route and indemnify each municipal authority through the areas of which the abnormal and indivisible load has to pass, and, if at all possible, give four days' notice. (This should be altered to 24 hours.) It is often totally impracticable to give this notice and comply with same, but we try at all times to give the police as much notice as possible, and keep in touch with them by 'phone.

We also wish to point out that we have tried a large number of insurance societies, through our own, to get cover for this indemnity, which we have to give to the various authorities, but so far have failed to find one which will take this risk. Perhaps the Ministry of Transport can put us into touch with a company willing to do so?

Now the hot weather is coming on, we have our livelihood and reputation at stake in carrying on a trade which has gone on for ages. As contractors with the boiler makers for these indivisible loads, we shall be called upon to pay for any damage which may be done to the roads, and as you are aware of what happens on a new tar-sprayed and shingled road by the tyres licking up the new tar, we do not know where and when our liability will cease. The authorities have no option but to claim if they think fit.

This indemnity business ought to apply to all vehicles carrying more than an 8-ton load, 5 toes on the motor and 3 tons onthe trailer.

The tax is a very heavy and serious one, and taking Into consideration the small mileage that is done with these engines, and the slow progress they make in travelling on the roads, we certainly ought to have some special consideration. The legitimate function of a heavy trailer or traction engine is to carry heavy indivisible loads on short journeys where speed is not essential, and such heavy tractors, now all on rubber tyres, do far less damage than a lighter motor travelling at high speed.

We heartily anp.roye of all vehicles being on rubber tyres, making damage to the roads through block or cross-bar, wheels and steel tyres an impossibility. These tyres have cut out heavy repair bills, and all vibration when travelling.

Consider an eight-wheeled trailer with a boiler totalling, say, 30 tons. This does not bring the axle weights to more than four tons per wheel, which is considerably less than most high-speed motor wagons. Also take a 25-ton boiler on 16-in, wheels, of 16-in, width, the weight is little more than six tons per wheel, and is well distributed.

The railways cannot compete with us on such jobs as taking, say, a boiler from Leeds, Dewsbury, or Huddersfield to Manchester, Oldham, Leeds, or anywhere which we should term a short distance, but if one has to go to London, or the South, or Scotland, or other long distances, by all means let it go by rail.

The present Government's intention is to encourage trade with a view to absorbing the unemployed, but employers engaged in the textile and allied industries in this district will look askance at being charged an extra £100or £200 for the transportation of, say, a boiler, and will certainly hesitate when considering development schemes and the purchasing and installing of new plant. ALLEN KNIGHT, Director

For Allen Knight And Son (Boilers), Ltd. Huddersfield.

The Conveyor System and Lifting Tackle at the Vauxhall Works.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

(40961 Sir,—Our attention has been called to your issue of April 21, 1933, and an article therein entitled "Processes in the Production of the Bedford."

On page 352 in the last paragraph of this article you state that the conveyor system and lifting tackle to various machines are products of Herbert Morris, Ltd., and we wish to point out that this is incorrect.

We have supplied and erected or re-erected every conveyor that is used at these works, all the overhead monorail conveyors, including the new unit conveyor, and much of the actual lifting tackle, and at the recent change-over, which we believe was the world's record, we were responsible for the entire conveying equipwent.

n30 We fed sure that Vauxhall Motors, Ltd., will confirm this statement, and we would ask you to be good enough to correct the impression that has been left on your readers by the article in question.

DONALD M. KING,

Hitchin. Overhead Department, For Geo. W. King, Ltd.

[During our tour of the Vauxhall works we made inquiry as to the origin of the equipment in question and regret that there was an error in the information obtained. which was published ,in good faith.--En.]

A Question of Unladen Weight The Editor, THE:COMNERCIAL MOTOR.

[4097] Sir,—Prior to taking any drastic step, . I would esteem it a favour if you would give me your opinion and advice on the following ;—Last May • I took delivery of a Bedford rigid six-wheeler (T.T.A. attachment) ; to save time, the agent weighed and licensed it for Inc. The unladen weight was given to me as 2 tons, thus calling fora £25 tax. Finding the lorry had no loading board behind the cab, and that the. drop sides were too low, I had the former fitted, also the sides made 1 ft. deeper,. the weight of the alterations being approximately 2 cwt. Two months later I happened. to be in Manchester, when a policeman approached me about the alteration, and as to whether it affected the licence ; he ordered nie to take the vehicle on to a weighing machine; the unladen weight of the lorry proved to be 2 tons 13 cwt.

Thinking that I would have a check against this, I Weighed the, lorry the day after, the unladen weight was then given as 2 tons 12 cwt., 3 qrs. Without the drop sides it was 2 tons 10 cwt. 2 qrs.

Subsequently the taxation authorities classified -the vehicie•ander the £32 per annum tax, and now I have arrears of £3 4s. 2d. to pay, in addition to £1 18s. 6d. which I had to find for this quarter, and a fine of 10s,

at the Manchester police court. .

It is obvious that the. weight of the alteration I had carried out to the lorry has had-little to do with the unladen weight. When I approached the agent he said that a mistake mest -have. been made

However, while I am. inclined to take proceedings. for misrepresentation against the agent, will you kindly give me your opinion as to whether I am entitled, to approach the agent to claim the extra tax 1 have. had to find? AodafEvEn. Bolton.

[We suggest that, in the first place, yeti should arrange with the agent who sold you the vehicle to have it 'weighed so that there may be no doubt between you as tri what is the correct weight. We WoUld remind you 'that in calculating the weight unladen there should be excluded the weight of petrol, water in the radiator, loose tools and. loose equipment. Before the vehicle is weighed, anything which is not fixed to the vehicle should be removed, including spare wheels, as it appears possible that if the vehicle he correctly weighed the weight may not exceed 2 tons 10 cwt. When you bought the vehicle it was represented that the weight unladen did not exceed 2 tons, and that therefore the annual licence duty would be £25. The additions which you made would evidently bring the weight unladen to over a tons, -Where the weight unladen exceeds 2 tons, but does not exceed 2 tons 10 cwt., the duty is £28, and the duty is £32 where the weight exceeds 2 tons 10 cwt., but does not exceed 3 tons, pneumatic tyres being. fitted in -each case. Our legal adviser has some doubt as to whether you would be successful in an action for misrepresentation against the agent, as in order to succeed it would probably be necessary for you to satisfy the court that when deciding to buy the vehicle you relied in particular on the representation that the weight unladen did not exceed 2 tons, and that if you had known that, in fact, the weight exceeded that amount you would not have bought the vehicle. He feels that it is quite likely that if you were otherwise satisfied with the vehicle when yott considered the question of buYing it, you would not have decided not to buy it merely because you found that the tax would be £28 instead of-f25, and he considers if probable that the judge would take that view. He does not advise you to commence an action.—Enj


comments powered by Disqus