ASK ANY GIRL
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN item of news recently was to the effect that members of Women's Institutes in Derbyshire had started a campaign against the drivers a diesel lorries that gave off thick black fumes. The women had agreed at their annual meeting to note the registration numbers of offending lorries and send details to the Ministry of Transport. What the Ministry would do with the information is not clear, but at the very least an army of women lorry-spotters look like becoming a new hazard of the road, at any rate in Derbyshire.
Although there is no reason to doubt that a surge of honest indignation inspired the decision, one is entitled to speculate whether there is more to it than that. The circumstances recall what has been happening in the United States where, not so long ago, a number of bodies such as parent-teacher associations and leagues of municipalities were being moved to oppose applications by hauliers who wished to carry explosives. Evidence produced in a long-drawn-out case still going through the U.S. legislature seeks to show that the moving spirit was an organization set up by the railways.
One of the road carriers affected invoked the anti-trust laws and alleged that the opposition was deliberately encouraged in order to help re-establish a rail monopoly. Much of the work, it was said, was done indirectly in order to give the impression that the complaints about the carriage of explosives reflected genuine public opinion and not, a sectional interest. The collection of proof of what had been happening therefore took a considerable time, and a massive volume of evidence was presented at the trial at the district court. The case has now gone to the Supreme Court.
IF interests in Great Britain with no great love for road transport wished to follow the methods adopted in America, they might do worse than begin with diesel smoke. Here is a nuisance of which everybody has seen some signs. The smoke is annoying; it can obscure the view of other road users and thus lead to accidents; and there is a rumour that it is a danger to health. Agitation about it can therefore be stirred up without great difficulty and the prime movers can then withdraw in the certainty that their work will continue.
Lorry owners, especially those whose vehicles may be guilty of emitting black smoke, are at a disadvantage. The chairman of the Road Haulage Association, Mr. J. B. Mitchell, has said that the extent of the danger and menace has been grossly exaggerated, but he could not deny that the nuisance exists. In face of attack from organizations representing important sections of the public, road operators can do little more than murmur polite excuses and try to educate or discipline the offenders within their own ranks.
In the meantime the damage has been done. In the face of what seems to be a strong section of public opinion, the Minister of Transport and the Government, although their sympathies may be with road operators and although they may be well aware of what is really happening, are goaded into taking action of some kind. They may strengthen the enforcement procedure, or increase the severity of the penalties, or introduce legislation to create new offences. Whatever happens, road operators are hampered in their activities and there is a corresponding gain to their competitors. In the U.S.A. the excuse for attacking hauliers was the potential danger arising from the carriage of explosives by road, which may hardly be thought to justify the cost and trouble of a large-scale campaign to stir up public opinion. If the evidence collected by the road interests is to be believed, however, the railways considered the campaign to be well worth while, as can be seen from a letter said to be sent by the assistant solicitor-general of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to the legal representatives for three other railways.
REFERENCE is made in the letter to a newspaper article commenting on a fatal accident involving a lorry carrying explosives and advocating that such traffic ought to go by rail. This expression of opinion clearly shows "the coordination between the legal and public relation's work that we have achieved "—such is the comment. The letter continues: "If we can make a reality of the objectives stated by the editorial, that this is one monopoly that should be given back to the railways, we will have established the principle that there is certain traffic that should be moved primarily by rail and ultimately, I believe, this principle, once established, could be extended to other commodities."
Whether or not there are concealed influences at work against the road operator in Britain, the warning is clear. Powerful voices are already urging a policy that mirrors the aims set out in a private letter by a railway advocate in America. The general line of the argument is that road and rail should co-operate rather than compete with each other, that certain kinds of traffic are more suitable for certain kinds of transport and that steps should be taken to direct traffic into the appropriate channels.
The first target for attack is. the outsize load. The choice is obvious because it at once attracts a fair amount of popular support, especially from other road users, thus splitting the opposition at the outset. As with the agitation about diesel smoke, the authorities know exactly what is going on. They know the importance of the abnormal indivisible load and that it travels by road usually because there is no other possible means of transport.
NEVERTHELESS, Press and Parliamentary. comment and resolutions and deputations from various bodies make it necessary to take some action which is bound to be to the detriment of the haulier. Once success is visibly being made along these lines, the attack can then be extended to other types of traffic. The general public may not be so interested, but the all-important principle has been established and will be applied remorselessly.
Rarely is the British approach as whole-hearted and brash as the American. There is not likely to be found here an organization for subverting road transport on the same scale as has been alleged over there. It is hard not to believe, however, that the ,criticisms of British road operators are entirely spontaneous and disinterested. The operators themselves would do well to believe otherwise and to take the threat seriously. If there is a road-rail battle, they are clearly winning it on the operational front. They must be careful to guard against attack from the rear. Counter-attack is scarcely possible, but they must at least be sure that answers are made to all accusations and criticisms.