Opinions from Others.
Page 18
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Doncaster Visitor.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1578] Sir,—During my recent visit to the Doncaster Show, I found that the map and stand-to-stand report which you published were of the greatest assistance to sue: they saved me much leg weariness. For the first time since I became interested in mechanical transport—a matter of some 10 years—I have rarely visited a show without coming away and finding that I had overlooked sonic special exhibit which I had particularly desired to inspect. Well, Sir, the guide and map which you published were so concise and clear that I trusted to them entirely, and dispensed with all other aid. I visited every stand in which I was interested, and saw all that I wished to see, and for the assistance which you rendered please accept my best thanks. If "a man in the street," however, may presume to advise you, may I suggest that, the next time such a map and report is published, you will include the business conveniences, without which we are somewhat at sea. I mean the post office, telephone boxes, cloak rooms, and so on.—Yours faith fully, "VISITOR."
Provincial Motor Service.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1579] Sir,—Your article on the North-Eastern Railway system was, if I may say so, one of the best of its kind published in any journal for some considerable period. Having thus congratulated you, I will proceed with the main purport of my letter. You seem to be rather in favour of the North-Eastern Railway policy of running its own motor passenger vehicles. This is all very well in its way, but you must remember that many of us smaller men have invested our little few hundreds in services of this sort, and we naturally object somewhat to the big railway companies coming in and squeezing us out of the business. As the railway companies have spent so much money on permanent way and plant, and as in this particular line they can have no competition, I think it only fair that they should confine their attentions to their permanent way and their lines. I think that your help should be extended not to the big railway companies—numbering perhaps half-a-dozen in all—but rather to the small users, who will number in the course of a few years several thousands. I enclose my card.—Yours faithfully, " PROVINCIAL CARRIER.'
The Problem of Bad Loading.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1580] Sir,—I have had trouble with the loading of my light vans. It seems impossible to knock it into a driver's head that the loads must be equally distributed. I would suggest that, before selling a wagon, the maker should go pretty fully into the business of the purchaser, and give him a little instructive advice as to the loading of the wagon. I employ several three-wheelers in my business, and these are used for the conveyance of fruit and flowers from Covent Garden to the suburbs. Some little time ago you were kind enough to describe in the columns of your journal a run made by one of my carriers. Well, on several occasions recently, I have been faced with the problem of tire weaknesses, and this is quite a serious matter, as, instead of the flowers arid fruit getting to my suburban shops at nine and ten o'clock in the morning, in time for the before-luncheon deliveries. they have been held up owing to the tire trouble of which I am writing. I do not blame the carrier in any way : it is perfectly satisfactory and I am more than pleased with it, but I think if the makers took the trouble to impress upon drivers that loads must be equally distributed and showed the evil effect of bad loading by practical illustrations in their own shops, the great loading trouble would he to a large extent obyiated.—Yours faithfully. Tramlines and Tire Wear.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[15bl] Sir,—I have followed the letters which have appeared recently in your journal having reference to the above subject. The thing seems to me to be absolutely stupid. The tramlines are undoubtedly the cause of much damage to tires. Surely any man with eyes to see need only walk down any of the provincial streets, and there notice the sunken lines—at. the crossings in particular—and then use his own judgment as to whether these lines damage rubber tires, both solid and pneumatic). I quite fail to see the use of prolonged discussion. The lines wear into 2 in. grooves and ruts, and the points become as sharp, almost, as ploughshares. I, personally, am interested in a company which is making a feature of raw cotton delivery from the docks to the mills, and I have given the matter of tire wear and depreciation considerable attention. I have found out that very little damage is done to the tires of my wagons, beyond everyday wear and tear, when on the country roads, and these, in the Lancashire district in which I operate, are nothing at all to boast about. In Manchester, Bolton and Blackburn, however, I have seen a lorry go through these towns, and, after running a few miles on the tramlines, they have come back with a cut 3 in. or 4 in. long and anything up to 11 in. in depth in the tire& I think, Sir, that you might with advantage conduct a far more vigorous campaign than has been the case up to now.--Yours faithfully, Liverpool. CHARLES SNOWDON.
Bullying by the Local Council.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[156] Sir,—I have occasionally come across your journal, and have read it with the greatest interest. Although I am not at all an expert on the matter, I came to the conclusion, some years ago, that it would pay me to make an effort to cater for heavy motorvans and steam wagons, and I went to the expense of having a notice board erected outside my hotel giving notice that I was prepared to cater for these vehicles. For the first month or so, no notice was taken, and then one or two wagons began to take advantage of the offer. I have a fine yard with a big range of sheds at the end, and these sheds are quite high enough suitably to house every and any vehicle. As time went on, however, drivers began to realize that they could obtain suitable accommodation for their wagons and for themselves at my house, and began to mention me to their friends who were also drivers of vehicles. At the end of 12 months I had quite a connection in this line, and felt very pleased with my enterprise in getting in early on this new business. A. fortnight ago, I was considerably astonished to receive a visit from the vicar of the village and one or two of the local gentry, who complained to me that I was attracting a most undesirable class of traffic through the village which would break up the roads at the expense of the local rates, and also drive away cyclists and motorists who visit the place. They requested me to take down the notice and to refuse to cater any further for heavy motor vehicles. As these gentlemen are members of the local council, and are also magistrates. I am placed in rather an awkward position. Should I refuse to fall in with their suggestions, it is quite likely that I will have trouble about my licence. or they will resort to pin-pricks on every possible occa sion.
I have written to the C.A1.17.A. giving these particulars. and I thought I would also lay my case before your readers, hoping that someone amongst them would afford me some little advice. I enclose a billhead, in which you will notice the little reference I have made with regard to the garaging of these vehi. eles,—Ynurs faithfully. " Corti:TRY PUBLICAN." A_Reply to our "Trailer Editorial.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1583] have read with interest your article on street accidents in London in your issue of 4th July, 1912, to which I do not wish to apply a stronger word than " inaccuracy " in respect to the table you have supplied. You ought to be aware that the Home Secretary's figures were corrected by himself and that the number of tramcars licensed was 2265 and not 1547, which puts quite a different complexion upon the proportion of accidents to cars. [See first " leader " this week.—En.]
The extraordinary part of the article is, that it seems to suggest that because a motorbus company chooses to select routes at present occupied by tramway cars, the bus company, being the newcomers, are entitled to howl at the alleged congee
tion, towards which they themselves must be a
large additional contributor and on their " ipse dixit " (which I am by no means prepared to admit) that a motorcar is much better than a tramcar for the purposes of traffic [What about the Board of Trade official view 1—En.], the tramcar should be ignomi niously pushed off the streets, which have been immensely improved and widened at the expense of the tramway undertaking [This is not true.—En.] as one of the conditions upon which they obtained their statutory rights.
It is no purpose of mine to enter into a controversy as to the value of the motorbus, nor even to suggest its limitations. The man who is capable of viewing questions relating to traffic of all kinds without having his judgment warped by reason of his association with one particular class of vehicle, will readily admit that motorbuses have their uses from which the public derive benefit in the same way as in the case of tramcars or railless cars ; each has its particular field according to circumstances, and it is therefore somewhat surprising to find a journal like yours, which should be above what is commonly called "narrow-mindedness," putting forward officially for the benefit of your subscribers, an article possessing neither common-sense nor decency. It is fortunate that as a general rule people who stoop to personal attacks not only bring discredit upon themselves, but their statements, like chickens, have an unfortunate habit of coming home to roost.
It does not seem to have occurred to your limited vision that the whole object of the County Council's Bill for the introduction of trailers is directed entirely towards getting rid of alleged congestion, and also getting rid of what you term "the astounding waste of the public highway, due to the unnecessary carrying round of unoccupied seats " during certain periods of the day.
It also does not appear to occur to you that the size of the cars, which you so strongly protest against, is the outcome of the action of the Police Authorities in the past. To my mind it is childish for a motorbus company who, for the object of dividends alone, have put on an enormous number of buses and are contemplating a much larger output, to suggest that because their business is affected by the presence of a tramway on routes which they themselves have chosen for the purpose of competition, instead of directing their energies to routes devoid of tramways, such tramways should be swept off the streets.
That your unreasonable attack on the tramway question and its publicity for which you are responsible will recoil with serious results on the motorbus industry, I have not the slightest hesita tion in believing. When once the average Londoner appreciates what you would have done well to remain silent about—viz., that at the present day, with approximately the same number of vehicles, the death roll attributable to the motorbus is nearly six times greater than that attributable to the tramway ear—then he will demand, and will undoubtedly obtain, the protection to which he is entitled. As is well known, every tramcar must be provided with the most modern and efficient form of life-saving appliance. Where are the life-saving appliances on the motorbus, and why are they not provided? And why should a motorbus company be exempt from prosecution when anyone is killed on _account of their culpable negligence in not providing, for the sake of a few paltry pounds, reasonable protection for the public, on whose custom they rely ? With one voice you speak of the severe danger to pedestrians and others due to congestion, which you yourselves assist in producing, and, with your tongue in your cheek, are silent upon the accidents for which you yourselves are responsible through not adopting some form of life-saving appliance. A large portion of a reply to your article might be directed towards the adoption of trailer cars and their advantages. This matter, however, is at the moment " sub ludice." Would it be unreasonable to adopt your own language and suggest that the last paragraph of your article' is an " impudent and untrue supposition? " It is founded in the first instance on official statistics which are not yet available—this is an impudent supposition. It is founded on the assumption that in the City of London (which has no tramcars) the public enjoy comparative immunity from accidents, fatal or otherwise—this is untrue. [We again refer Mr. Sellon to official figures.—ED) It is half a lie, which everybody knows is worse than a whole lie because it conveys only half the truth. The street traffic in the City of London is immensely congested, and as the larger proportion of accidents is due not to the great. number of vehicles but to excessive speed, you have carefully eliminated the information which would best give your readers the solution of this alleged immunity.
Some years ago I heard the late Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone give evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons against a railway company. During his evidence he charged the railway company with having acted dishonestly. The Chairman asked him whether he would like to modify the word dishonest" before leaving the box, to which he replied that probably he possessed the most unique knowledge of the English language and that with this knowledge he knew of no mean between an honest transaction and a dishonest transaction, and for that reason he was not prepared to amend his evidence as suggested. Throughout the whole of your article I apply and re-echo the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone's words, with this addition, that you can either accept the word " dishonest " or "ignorant.," whichever is most suitable to your feelings.—Yours faithfully,
STEPHEN SELLON.