AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Motor Van and Wagon Users' Association.

16th November 1905
Page 31
Page 31, 16th November 1905 — The Motor Van and Wagon Users' Association.
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 :

Important Discussions in Committee.

A meeting of the committee of the Motor Van and Wagon Users' Association was held at 119, Piccadilly, London, W., en Wednesday the ist instant. There were present: Col. R. E. Crompton, C.D., M.I.C.E. (chairman), Messrs. L. II. liaxendale (Pickford's, Ltd.), J. L. Farmiloe, Howard Humphrevs, g.i.m.E., W. G. Lobjcit, Douglas Mackenzie, E. Shrapiiell Smith (lion, treasurer), W. H. Willcox, and W. Rees Jeffreys (secretary). The business transacted included the following :• -

ROYAL COMMISSION EVIDENCE.—The secretary 'read copy of a letter to the Royal Commission asking them to hear Col. Crompton, Mr. E. Shrapnell Smith, and Mr. Douglas Mackenzie as witnesses on behalf of the association, and also copy of the reply as follcws :—" In reply to your letter of October 3oth, I am directed to state that the above Commission will be prepared to hear Col. R. E. Crompton and Mr. E. Shrapiaell Smith on Tuesday, November ant, at 10.30 a.m." It was agreed that Col. Crompton and Mr. Shrapnell Smith should, accordingly, present the views of the association before the Commissioners on the date named in the letter received_

The question of the evidence to be placed before the Royal Commission was discussed and, among other things, the following specific points were agreed to :— Lieensing.—That a special road tax be agreed to, subject to its being paid into a central fund to be administered by a central authority and paid only in respect of roads which are of a prescribed standard of strength. The sum of 5 shillings per ton on the combined registered axle weight was suggested as an amount to be proposed. It was felt that the users obtained a locus standi against persecution by agreeing to the payment of a tax.

Disturbance of Order.—That the order be not disturbed as regards tyre and wheel dimensions, on the ground that it was impossible for any evidence to be brought forward in this respect, no fair trial having been given on which evidence could be based. The argument to be employed by the users is the large sums of money expended by them in complying with the Order in this respect.

..Stced Eimit.—That the abolition of the speed limit be urged with regard to vehicles with resilient tyres. Extraordinary Tra.ijic.—That, with regard to extraordinary traffic, a clause should exist giving power to any haulier, or other person, hauling over certain stretches of road, to have the road opened up on demand to see exactly the condition thereof beforehand, he paying the costs. This would act as a deterrent on local authorities before any claims were made.

Also, a clause that traffic taken by motor vehicles instead of horses is not per en extraordinary traffic. That the words, "Having regard to what the Highway has cost," should be added to Section 53 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878.

Oneribieses.--That local interests were too small for urban district councils to have power to license omnibuses, and county and borough councils should have the right only. That the provisions of general identification marks should be extended to owners of licensed stage carriages. That the taxation on motor omnibuses of 43 18s. was large as compared with 15s. for horse omnibuses. Bridm.—The secretary reported that he had written to Mr. Joynson Hicks for his opinion on the following points :

(i.) If a county council closes a bridge to heavy motor cars, under the provisions of Section a (a) of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, is there an appeal to the Local Uevernment Beard or any other authority? (s.) If a county council, under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act, closes a bridge to heavy motorcars, when it call be proved such bridge can bear such traffic, what procedure, if any, is open to (a) an aggrieved owner of a motor wagon ; (b) the committee of the Motor Van and Wagon Users' Association, with a view of securing the removal of the restriction?

(3.) What pains and penalties would the owner of a motorcar render himself liable to if, in spite of the notice, he crossed the bridge, and (a) damaged it, or (b) did no damage?

Mr. Hicks' opinion was as follows :— " I have considered the points submitted to me in your letter of the 26th inst. with reference to the closing of the traffic of heavy motorcars over bridges. By Section x (aJ of the Locomotives Act, 1896, the county council have power to make bye-laws preventing or restricting the use of light 1°mm:dyes upon any bridge within their area where they are satisfied that sech use would be atteaded by damage to the bridge or danger to the public; No provision is made in the Act with regard to the confirmation of such bye-laws, and, therefore, in reply to the first question raised by you, I am of opinion that there is no appeal to the Local Government Board or any other authority against bye-laws, made in pursuance of that Act.

"With regard to question 2, I am of opinion that no preceedinga are open either to an aggrieved owner or to

• the committee of your association.

"With regard to 3, tile owner of a motorcar who crosses a bridge in spite of the restriction would be liable under the 1896 Act to a fine not exceeding Zio, even if he did no damage ; if he did damage, to a fine not exceeding Zio, to repair the damage done, and to make any payments incurred through the obstruction, interruption, or delay to the persons entitled to the use of the river, canal, or railway over which the bridge was built. This liability for damage is imposed by Section 7 of the Locomotives Act, i861, and also by Section 13 of the same Act, neither of which sections is repealed even in favour of light locomotives by the Locomotives Act, "With regard to your point as to the possibility of an appeal under the provisions of the earlier Acts, I must point out that practically all the earlier Acts which apply to locomotives on highways are repealed so far as light locomotives are concerned, and that, although the Locomotives Act, 1898, makes provision for an appeal by an aggrieved owner against restrictions on the passing over bridges of locomotives, it is provided bv Section re' of the 1898 Act that nothing in that Act shall affect light locometives within the meaning of the Locomotives Act of 1896.

do not think that the provisions of the Heavy Motorcar Order, 1904, which are contained in Article 14 of that Order, supersede or limit the provision:, of Section i (a) of the ISO Act, my opinion being that they are in addition to the provisions of that section. The Heavy Motor Car Order is made under Section 6 of the 180 Act, arid Section 12 of the 1903 Act, and I do not find in the 1896 Act anything which gives the Local Government Board power to frame regulations overriding the power given to the county council under the Act.

"You will see from the above that if a person owns a locomotive of, say, is toils, he can appeal against restrirtions on passing over bridges, whilst, if his locomotive is a light locomotive within the 1896 Act, there is no provision made for appeal, and we thus get the absurd position that the Local Government Board having quashed an order under the 1898 Act, a bridge would be open to 12-ton locomotives, but closed to 2-ton locomotives, and I cannot help feeling that this is an anomaly which was never intended by the Legislature. Having regard to the complexity of the question and its great importance to the owners and users of motor wagons, your committee may think it desirable to take counsel's opinion on the question.

" FIave you considered the question of applying for a mandatory injunction against some highway authority or bridge owner, to compel him lo bring up his bridge to the strength requisite for modern traffic? 1 am of opinien that this would be merely an extension of the principle laid down in some of my recent traction engine cases' and is well worth your consideration." After some discussion, the following points were agreed to :-(/) Power to Local Government Board to revoke an order at any time; ts) power to Local Government Board to order any private company to put any specific bridge into the state of repair or bring it up to the standard of strength to which it had originally been built; (3) appeal to Local Government Board against all closed bridges; (4) proper notice of a bye-law in the "London Gazette."


comments powered by Disqus