Would 25 m.p.h. be More Effective?
Page 50
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I IKE your contributor Mr. K. N. Russell, who in "your issue dated February 23 suggested a compromise permitting 30 m.p.h. in derestricted areas and 20 m.p.h. in built-up areas, I think something of this kind should be introduced. Most heavy vehicles already run at speeds of between 25 and 30 m.p.h., when traffic and the open road permit. With the average vehicle of to-day, however, including any built in the past 15 years or so, and particularly the real "heavies," it is difficult to keep down to 20 m.p.h. except in traffic and in low gear, whilst the engine does not work well at such speed on the open road. The average driver also finds that dawdling along at 20 m.p.h. is boring and fatiguing, and tends to make the driver drowsy, which is particularly risky.
I have found that 25 m.p.h., in favourable circumstances, is fairly satisfactory, whether the vehicle be an 8-tonne r or an 8-wheeler, and certainly better in vehicle performance, work accomplished and the effects on oneself. At 30 m.p.h. I find the work a little too strenuous to keep up all day; one needs a short break at rather more frequent intervals.
I suggest, therefore, that 25 m.p.h. might be the provisional limit on which operating schedules should be based, but it should not be regarded as an offence to drive at 30 m.p.h. on the open road.
Much depends upon the class of driver. Sonic are not " equipped " for speed, all their movements being slow. One type of driver is antagonistic to any increase and thinks that it is not safe to drive at 30 m.p.h. My idea is that the modern vehicle is vastly superior in braking power to those dated about 1930, and many of the new type are being driven in perfect safety at the higher speed. Other men appear to think that raising the limit would lead to redundant drivers and unemployment, possibly also to reduced wages.
Most traflic foremen work their men in accordance with their capacities, and that is the best procedure to adopt. If a man be better on an 8-wheeler than on an 8-tonner, let him have the former. If he be one who is willing and able to run 200 miles and deliver the same day with greater interest than he would have on local work, then put him on long-distance.
Bletchley. A. J. PARRIS.
DO LOCAL HAULIERS RECEIVE JUSTICE?
f REFER to your issue of February 23, wherein Mr.
J. H. Brebner replies to the insinuations made by Janus in your issue of February 2. I would remind Mr. Brebner that on April 29, 1947, Mr. G. R. Strauss stated in Parliament:— " If it (the Commission) started out to try to drive the local haulier out of business—I cannot understand why in the world it should want to do so— but, if by any chance, it wanted to do so, it would be directly flouting the duties placed upon it by Parliament. That duty is to integrate the existing public services in the country and see that they are as efficient as possible and service the public as well as possible. . . . Any Minister of Transport would inevitably give the Commission directions, if he suspected for one moment that they were setting out on a line which was contrary to that imposed by Parliament." (Hansard, 29.4.47.) B16 . And on June 22, 1949, Lord Hurcomb subsequently stated:— " It is our intention that the latitude to issue • Original Permits to continue operation shall be exercised in a manner and in a spirit which will acknowledge the importance of just treatment of the individual haulier and the interests of trade;as well as the convenience of administration which should be a secondary consideration." (Hansard, 20.6.49.) Further comments are unnecessary.
Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1. F. MILTON, Secretary, Northern Area, Road Haulage Association.
IT is a pity that Mr. Brebner (" The Commercial I Motor," February 23) should have to wade through the old debates on the Transport Act for evidence to refute something I did not say. I was not accusing Lord Hurcomb of violating the Act; I was merely trying to point out that he is no better able than anybody else to say what was the precise intention of Parliament in giving him the powers he is determined to use so amply.
The statement made by Mr. G. R. Strauss on March 19, 1947, does not help very much. As no more original permits may now be granted, it is obvious that their number cannot grow, but only diminish. Mr. Strauss does not say that all permits and permit holders will ultimately be abolished.
For a more up-to-date version of what at least one Socialist thinks about the suppression of the haulier, I would draw Mr. Brebner's attention to the remarks made by Mr. Dye during the second • reading of the Transport (Amendment) Bill. Or, if he is not choosy about the party, he may like to note what Sir Arthur Salter said 10 minutes after Mr. Strauss sat down on that same March day in 1947: "I ask the Minister what is the criterion that he thinks the Commission will have in mind when they are considering whether a particular application should be refused or granted. It would be clear to any impartial authority that in the particular circumstances it would be somewhat to the advantage of the public, as regards convenience and economy, that the haulage should go on, but it is equally clear that, by a suppression of that haulage business, it would be to the advantage of the finances of the Commission. What does he think, in practice, will be the criterion in the mind of the Commission? I suggest that even if they take the first and better criterion to start with, they will very rapidly, by the ordinary human process with which we are all familiar, arrive at the second."
London, E.C.1.. JANus.
NOTIONAL EXPENSES AND HAULIERS' COMPENSATION
FROM what I have read in a professional journal during the 'past two months, some difficulty has been experienced in respect of the question of "notional expenses," as affecting road hauliers' compensation. There seem to be controvesy and doubt as to whether, in arriving at the compensation to be paid, a sum should be debited in the accounts for "proprietor's remuneration." There may be regulations on this
point made under the powers contained in the Road Haulage Act, but the position has, apparently, not yet been dearly established in view of the many differently constituted firms and companies involved. .
So far, however, as individual enterprisers are-concerned, I think more consideration should be shon, because they so often refrain, from drawing from their own business anything like what they would otherwise have been receiving as regular wages or salary by Working for an employer. Sometimes a proprietor may draw nothing fpr quite a long time in order to give himself a chance to build up the undertaking, in which case, this would be equivalent to monies being put into the concern as working capital, although his private standard of living may have had to be severely curtailed for a time, but that is exclusively his own affair.
Although, in time, the resulting profits may be said to include an element of undistributed salary, they are still profits and are as much the result of the proprietor's own operational policy as the profits of a differently constituted entity would be. Again, if the sole trader, in striving to build up and develop his business, chooses to restrict his drawings, this, surely is a privilege corresponding to the right of a larger concern to shorten its pay-roll, and nobody else has the right to measure his remuneration for him.
His trading or profit surplus may be such that a deduction for "notional remuneration " could reduce the compensation to a ridiculous figure or wipe it out Completely. On the other hand, that is to be the result of a case where a sole proprietor takes an extra-large salary, or perhaps best part of the profits, in a flourishing business for himself in respect of services rendered? Is it to be said here, too, "no profits—no compensation " when, in fact, there may well be an established concern and connection still earning handsome revenue with many years' capacity before it and with an obviously definite value of some sort, apart from what has or has not been taken out?
Any shortcomings or amendments of statutory provisions on these points should no leave the authorities with a total or absolut#-rialt t■ restrict the amount of compensatiom unsitgl .11..(0-421M-fast rules which leave the claimant's voice, out of account. Unless capable of clear interpretation and fair treatment, some objections by smaller road transporters must be expected on the score of "notional expenses," and as they have not clamoured for so much State control or nationalization, but, instead, are having it imposed on them, they are most certainly, entitled, at least, to the benefit of their arguments, according to the facts of the case, bearing on the point at issue. .
East Molesey, WILLIAM L. NEWTON. Surrey.
ADVICE ON LOADING LIGHT VEHICLES I WOULD like to make some observations concerning the care of lightly constructed vehicle bodies, stich as those used for furniture vans.
Bodies of this type are often ruined as a .result of the weight being badly distributed. An ordinary load of furniture occupying 1,000 cubic ft. weighs about 3 tons, and if this quantity be well placed, the bodies should last for many years.
There are, however, some occasions when a removals contractor is asked to carry such things as large iron safes weighing, possibly, a ton or more, or large quantities of such heavy small objects as books. Concentrated loads like these, covering only a small area, should be placed over the actual bearers of the body, and preferably above the spring anchorages. This arrangement will reduce the stress to the minimum. Far too often, however, what happens is that the heavy articles are placed at one side or both sides of the body, possibly on bearers, but overhanging the supports of those on the vehicle frame, with the result that there may be sagging, and rivets or screws may break or be drawn. The whole body, in fact, may be twisted and caused considerable damage. G. S. ELDRIDGE. Winchester.
LEGAL POSITION OF A RADIOGRAPHY UNIT I AM employed by a Regional Hospital Board as
driver-technician on a National Health Service massradiography unit. This consists of an X-ray van and dark room mounted on a Leyland Beaver chassis, the dimensions being: length 25 ft., width 7 ft. 6 ins., height 11 ft. 6 ins.; the weight is 10 tons. Behind this is a generator mounted on a four-wheeled trailer measuring The remainder of the staff consists o travel either by bus or taxi.
Will you please tell me (1) if under the regulations this be legal; (2) ii not, who would be prosecuted, myself as a driver, or the Hospital Board; (3) if more than one person be required, whether a female member of the staff travelling with me would comply with the law. Furthermore, the Road Fund licence on a vehicle such as this is free, but I have no C licence. Is this necessary? Durham. H.G.H.
[We are informed by a Licensing Authority that a vehicle belonging to and used by nationalized hospitals or an' other branch of the National Health Service, and not employed at any time in connection with a ,trade or business, requires no C licence. As regards the other queries you raise, there is no height limit for goods vehicles. and the limit of length for a single vehicle of this type would be 27 ft. 6 ins., whilst a trailer may have ii length of 22 ft., exclusive of drawbar. The total laden weight of the vehicle alone must not exceed 12 tons, and a trailer must not weigh more than 61 tons. Therefore, the outfit seems to be well within the law in these respects. A vehicle and trailer require an attendant in addition to the driver. We presume that if a female member of the staff travels in the cab with you, this would be sufficient to meet the requirement. With reference to the question as to who would be responsible in the event of a prosecution. normally, the driver is responsible, but action can also be taken against the owner if he is also responsible.—Eol