Opinions front Others.
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Locomotives or Heavy Motorcars?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1349] Sir,--I am glad to see that you have again drawn attention to the risk of mistakes in the classification of steam wagons. The police in my district are frequently inclined to make blunders of the kind, and it is only with the greatest difficulty that 1 have lately been able to persuade the superintendent that my steam wagons cannot have applied to them various by-laws made in respect of traction engines. One of my latest difficulties concerned the emission of smoke. The police wanted to make out that my engines must be constructed to consume their own smoke, but I have been able to satisfy them that such is not the case. Relying upon an earlier reference to the subject which I had cut out from one of your issues, I referred them to the wording of the definition clause of the Locomotives on Highways Act of 1896, and to the schedule to that Act which specifies the enactments which apply to traction engines and other heavy locomotives, but which are not to apply to light locomotives or heavy motorcars. The definition clause, as you well know, reads : " . . . and is so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour is emitted therefrom except from any temporary or accidental cause."
The object of my writing this letter is to remind fellow-owners of the facts, I enclose my card, but am desirous not to irritate the police by the use of my name in print. —Yours faithfully,
Fines for Technical Offences.
The Editor THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1350] Sir,-I am sure that the excellent article which appeared in. your issue of 4th June under this heading will appeal to all commercial motor owners as a most correct resume of the situation.
It is an appeal to the local magistracy to drop a vindictive policy towards motor wagon users and to mete out to them the same degree of justice which they so readily and ably dispense to the rest of their fellow citizens, Whilst motor wagon users have squirmed under the lash of vindictive punishment in the past they have always been ready to admit that the position of many borough teams was very difficult financially, and that their unfriendly attitude towards heavy motors was dictated more by force of penury than choice. Now, however, this reason is at any rate partially removed, and it is to be hoped that a very different spirit will prevail in the police court cases which are brought against heavy motor vehicles. The Motor Car Acts which regulate the punishment. of drivers and owners for technical offences urgently require revision. Most if not all of them were enacted at a time when motorcars were regarded as dangerous experiments and heavy motorcars were practically unborn. The amounts of the penalties were evidently fixed on the presumption that motorcars were the property of fairly well-to-do folk, as undoubtedly they were in the earliest days. Their application to-day to heavy motor wagon drivers would be ludicrous if it were not for the suffering they entail to the
Would any sane man suggest that it is reasonable to subject a motor wagon driver earning, say. 22 per week, to a fine of 210 and costs for a technical offence? It is only a fortnight since a fine of 24 and costs was actually inflicted on a driver for driving at a speed of 10 miles per hour instead of eight miles per hour.
Another man who owns and works his own machine was fined 23 and costs for driving at a rate of five miles and 550 yds. per hour in place of five miles per hour. Surelyif magistrates cannot, exercise a wiser discretion than this it is time their powers of inflicting heavy fines on working men for trivial offences were somewhat curtailed.
The endorsing of a men's licence is a further matter which requires reyision ; at present every 'trivial offence is put in as evidence against h man from the date of conviction to the day of his burial. I maintain that this should riot be, particularly in the case of a man who depends for his living upon driving. The present time appears to be favourable for examining the way in which the Acts are being applied and for the authorities in London to insist upon a more reasonable interpretation of the same. Not only is such revision required in justice to the individual but from a national standpoint. The recent food supplement of the " Times " has forcibly de scribed the vital importance of transport to the nation, and has pointed out, and given proof of, the close alliance between the growth of the population and the growth of means of cheap and efficient transport. Motor transport is undoubtedly the cheapest and most rapid means of distributing food and goods in many departments of commercial activity, and it is a first duty of the Government to see that nothing is allowed to hinder its free development. Moreover, the need of motor transport for relieving our railway systems at points of congestion is yearly becoming more evident. In such towns as Manchester and Liverpool it is an admitted fact beyond dispute. Under such circumstances the wisdom of your _suggestion not to confine axle-weights within rigid limits becomes clear. At the same time excess axle-weights would undoubtedly mean that the owner must pay the State something for the accommodation allowed.. The keynote of your suggestions, Sir, seems to me to be an appeal for the application of more commonsense in regulating the development of a fairly new and growing asset of the community, and one the full value of which no man can yet gauge.—Yours faith fully, " LANCASTRIAN."
A Provincial Parade in 1915.
The Editor THE COMMERCIAt MOTOR.
[1:-51] Site—Although you have not heard much from me lately it is not from lack of interest in commercial motors in general, and in your journal in particular.
Having read with much interest your account of London's recent highly-successful Parade, and the remarks anent a possible provincial one, my thoughts return to my native heath, and to, as you will remember, my persistent advocacy of a Manchester parade. Taking this city as the Mecca of pilgrims (steel and rubber shod) from the very numerous surrounding towns, it seems to me to be a not insuperable difficulty to obtain power to hold a parade in a district. not too near the centre of the city, yet not too far. A road which appeals to me is the Oldham Road, from New Cross onwards towards Newton Heath. It is possibly our widest road, and although it has a double line of tram track, there is. I think, room on either side for at least two rows of motor vehicles to be drawn up side by side. The road is a very long one, and I believe easily able to accommodate on both its sides all the vehicles necessary for a successful parade.
With the essential assistance of your unique experi ence,.and of that of Mr. Bristow, I feel sure I am right. in still holding out for a Manchester parade, and that our motor-owning friends at all points in Lancashire, Cheshire. Derbyshire and part of Yorkshire at least would support it by sending their vehicles. An important element to consider is that Probably a large number would come on parade loaded, and would be able to deliver their loads when the parade was over.
If it could be. held in Whit week, there is not a more suitable time for the district, and I venture to predict that if our motor owners and manufacturers will only give to the project some of that local snir't which made the Ship Canal, the success of the parade is assured.—Yours faithfully, NO.Iiche..ster. PHILIP KERSHA W