AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Painful Publicity to Deter

19th November 1965
Page 24
Page 25
Page 24, 19th November 1965 — Painful Publicity to Deter
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?

A T Eastbourne recently, when Maj.-Gen, A. F. J. Elmslie presided at the first special

hearing in the South Eastern Area devoted to Section 178 inquiries, there must have been some present who felt the atmosphere a little redolent of a court martial. The erect, soldierly, "no nonsense" appearance of the Licensing Authority; the huddled groups of hauliers, with witnesses and advocates, all taking the proceedings very seriously indeed; the only things lacking were khaki uniforms and the staccato " left-right-left " as the escorts marched defaulters to the dais.

As the inquiry got under way the mood lightened somewhat. If the General was firm, he was also human. No Draconian punishments were awarded; the unkindest cut of all from the LA was the reiterated hope that the publicity given to the hearing would provide an effective deterrent against any return visits.

in their nation-wide drive to improve the standards of vehicle maintenance, the Ministry of Transport and LAs are in a cleft stick. Swingeing suspensions or revocations might lead all but the most foolhardy hauliers to tighten up their maintenance procedures; but in a licensing system which compels applicants to prove need, revocations must inevitably hurt some customers; and it requires no very skilful advocacy to prove that the nation's trade and export prospects are prejudiced by shortage of transport.

Disciplinary action under Section 178 can clearly hurt the offender; in the extreme case he can be put out of business. Even if such extreme measures became the rule, and not the exception, the authorities would still be faced with the disposal of run-down fleets, at a time when there is, in many areas, an acute shortage of skilled staff and well-equipped premises.

The risk, in present circumstances, is that hauliers (and, for that matter, coach operators) will come to accept the modest token suspensions doled out by LAs and will be prepared to accept the consequences, rather than spend time and money on putting in a good system of preventive maintenance.

This said, it is worth looking in more detail at some of the more interesting cases at Eastbourne.

Tipper Fleet

G. Haskins and Son. Emsworth, operators of a 42-vehicle fleet which had grown from small beginnings with horse-drawn vehicles, admitted through their advocate (Mr. Knight) that their vehicle-servicing system had broken down. Each Sunday half the fleet was given a "cursory check" when oil changes were made.

That system ", said Mr. Knight, with feeling, "if it can be called a system, might be O.K. for a small fleet but the fleet is now large enough to demand

something more ". Some defective vehicles would always slip through a B20

"cursory check ", said Mr. Knight, who added that drivers were not relied upon to report defects, but their failure to do so was a factor in the case.

Mr. L. Haskins said he had told a driver to change some worn tyres but he had not done so. He agreed that there had been a number of immediate prohibition notices recently. He was now using RHA inspection sheets for monthly vehicle checks, and notices were displayed in cabs instructing drivers to check tyres and wheel nuts frequently.

When Maj.-Gen. Elmslie gave his decision he said he had personally examined one of the vehicles complained of. It was quite obvious, he said, that maintenance facilities required to be looked at and the firm needed to take advice to ensure that a thoroughly sound system of preventive maintenance was installed. Telling Mr. Haskins he was not impressed by attempts to blame drivers, he suspended two vehicles for a month.

Like Topsy

Three points stand out here. First, there must be many old family haulage concerns which have grown, like Topsy, from small beginnings. It is alarming to hear of a 42-vehicle fleet whose growth has not been paralleled by methodical provision for maintenance. To start, virtually from scratch, to develop a viable system can only be expensive; in some areas skilled staff may have to be provided with houses if they are to be recruited at all, and the alternative, to use commercial vehicle repairers, will not be universally popular.

The tendency at many hauliers to attribute some of the blame for defective Maintenance to drivers was. I think rightly, stressed by Maj.-Gen. Elmslie. On site or journey work, it is true, the driver alone knows whether new or developing defects have made the vehicle unsafe to drive. The fact remains that the operator is responsible for an unsafe vehicle. In past years. too many drivers reporting defects have been told brusquely to "shut up and jeep driving ". Now the chickens are earning home to roost, and I would not recommend arty haulier in trouble with GV9s to blame the driver for not reporting defects.

The third point needs no emphasis: 1

hope other LAs will make the opportunity to inspect vehicles unannounced. "on the job or at their base. There is no adequate substitute for personal experience, and if LAs see for themselves what goes on" they will be even better equipped to administer the law fairly.

Vehicle Replacement Problems

When Arnold Transport Company (Rochester) Ltd. faced the music, Mr. J. Atkins, a director, made some trenchant remarks. He inveighed against the lengthy delivery periods of the vehicle manufacturers; Arnold had had vehicles on order for up to two years, and even now an 18-month period was quoted for new orders. The result of all this, said Mr. Atkins. was that fitters had to work doubly hard on old vehicles due to he changed.

Another factor, he stressed, was that of political uncertainty. "We -may he nationalized; this aspect is causing much anxiety and difficulty throughout the country ", said Mr. Atkins. As regards labour relations, he affirmed that a happy relationship existed between Arnold and the Transport and General Workers' Union. On the score of maintenance, average running times and the obligations of drivers, they were "not at war ". The trouble was that so many of their vehicles were rapidly becoming obsolete.

Mr. Atkins concluded that some of the defects complained of on immediate prohibition notices could be the subject of argument; engineers often disagreed as to component serviceability. He thougnt it was a near the knuckle case" and he agreed with the LA that operators should spend more time reading the relevant sections of the Act. Suspending one vehicle for a month, the LA commented that appeal procedures had been in the Act for a long time.

Mr. D, G. Smith, managing director of Dor to Dor Carriers (Brighton) Ltd., expressed his deep regret that the company,' who operated 42 vehicles, should have received an immediate GV9. This, he said, was the first and the last. "We are in business to run an efficient transport organization, and if you're liable to get GV9s you cannot do that."

The general manager of Dor to Dor, Mr. W. G. Johnson, described the steps taken to tighten up their maintenance system. Formerly, it was based. on a 5,000-mile check; it was now to be one of 3.000 miles or 21 days. They had used the temporary substitution procedure eight times in a year. Their policy was to replace 10 vehicles annually, and this was progressively reducing the

average age of their fleet which, last year, was 5-7 years and was now 3-5 years. In addition, as a further contribution to maintenance. two B-licensed maintenance replacement vehicles were being applied for. He ended with a plea for leniency, and promised that it would not be abused.

Maj.-Gen. Elmslie said he accepted the sincere evidence given by Dor to Dor, but felt he should impose a penalty -in this case, a reprimand.


comments powered by Disqus