1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206 
top ic
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Credibility gap in transport
by Janus
BEFORE every politician yawns the credibility gap between what he professes and what he does. His skill lies in providing an acceptable bridge. Its structure will be subject to criticism both from his political opponents and from the interests who have urged him to a different course of action.
Failure to marry word and deed need not be a matter for reproach. To each question he must ultimately choose one of several possible answers. For each answer there may be good reasons and the politician may still meet widespread criticism after he has made up his mind.
The subject of weight increases for lorries is one on which the Minister of Transport, Mr. Fred MuIley, has decided to tread cautiously. There are sound economic and even international arguments in favour of a change. On the other hand are skilfully advocated fears of the inconvenience, danger and general loss of amenity that would follow.
Unless the Minister wanted to act he would not be taking so much trouble. A simple denial of any intention to increase vehicle weights would put an immediate end to the debate. As it is he advances under cover of what his Ministry recently described as "proposals by the transport industry that heavier goods vehicles—i.e. up to 44 tons weight for single vehicles—should be allowed on the roads".
Conveniently, no further definition is thought necessary of the so-called "transport industry" which has been so kind as to make the proposals. Surely everybody knows what is meant by the transport industry! All the same, Mr. Mulley might find it worth his while at some time to ask his officials for a list of names rather than abstractions of the supporters of 44-ton lorries.
FTER all, the Ministry statement • from which the quotation is taken goes on to say that Ministry officials "were anxious that all concerned should have the opportunity of putting their views before the Minister". The occasion was a brief report of a meeting of representatives of some of the organizations concerned. There were 22 organizations of different kinds on the list as well as two other Government departments.
According to the statement these organizations are "mainly concerned with the preservation of safety and amenity in England and Wales". Presumably, the "transport industry" pointedly excluded from the meeting is considered to have no such concern. Or can it be that the Ministry feared that the industry would not perform adequately the role of "devil's advocate" for which it has evidently been cast?
Preservation of safety, as the Ministry quaintly put it, was the guiding principle of section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 which sets out the new limits on drivers' hours coming into force on March 1 next. On this issue there was little or no conflict of interests nor any significant opposition from among the transport operators chiefly concerned, Doubts raised on certain points of detail still remain. It could be said that the Ministry have deliberately carved their own credibility gap. If a total spread of 14 hours was considered safe for the working day of the driver of a passenger vehicle it was difficult to understand why a limit of 121 hours was thought necessary on a lorry driver. A decision to allow 14 hours generally would have saved a good deal of argument and made unnecessary the tortuously worded Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Exemptions) Regulations 1970 which will probably be by no means the last word on the subject.
SOME variations are unavoidable. Section 96 protects the driver from . penalty for a contravention due to unavoidable delay in the completion of a journey arising out of circumstances which he could not reasonably have foreseen; and rather cautiously extends a similar protection to the employer who is sinned against in ignorance.
There are exemptions which it is easy to understand. Time spent off the road on agricultural or forestry work or on work in the building and construction industries is not treated as driving time. Nor do the limits on duty apply to vans plated up to 3+ tons and dual-purpose vehicles used for certain purposes which do not include the general carriage of goods.
By definition driving away from a road cannot affect road safety. It might be logical to say that a van driver should observe the limits on hours whatever the use to which the vehicle is put but the task of enforcement would be even less possible than with the ordinary van driver who is supposed to keep within the limits but does not have to keep records.
Exemptions may be straightforward but it is not so easy to define their boundaries. The Ministry draughtsmen have had to tie themselves into knots to distinguish between the various special needs and their treatment prescribed in the Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Exemptions) Regulations 1970. Seven categories of need are distinguished and in each case the terms of the exemption are different.
A common factor is the extension of the spread of the working day to 14 hours—except for milk workers whose concession merely allows them to postpone the weekly day off until later in the lunar month. This alternative is also available for drivers on Post Office Christmas work and on vehicles carrying fish, agricultural produce and bread.
ANIMALS are placed in the same category as human beings. At least this is what the Regulations and the Act appear to say although the wording i:: different. The working day of .the driver oi an express carriage or a contract carriage i: extended to 14 hours if "he is able for a period of not less than four hours to obtain rest and refreshment". The livestock driver can also spread his working day over 14 hours provided that "during that day he i: off duty for a period which is, or foi periods which taken together are, not lest than the time by which that working da3 exceeds 10 hours.
His advantage appears to be that he can work for the full 10 hours on any such day whereas this is only possible for the passenger driver if the day is spread over the full 14 hours. The passenger driver must take his time off in one period.
The driver carrying newly landed fish cm freshly harvested agricultural produce i: told that his working day should not exceec 14 hours. He is also allowed to extend tin working week to 66 hours. Where the wort is in connection with the collection am delivery of blood for transfusion thi reference returns to rest and refreshment u cover all the time by which the working da! exceeds 10 hours with the added concessiot that there can be more than one period Advantage cannot be taken of till exemption more than twice in a workim week.
THE description "off duty" returns it setting out the conditions unde which a driver engaged in thi distribution of newspapers, magazines am periodicals can have a working day of up ti 14 hours. Yet another variation of thi wording is introduced. Off duty must bi "for a period which is, or periods which it the aggregate are, not less than four hours", To qualify for exemption this particula driver has to be on duty to meet his specia need firstly between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m. an then between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. As the poe has it, a man's reach should exceed hi grasp. To prescribe a tantalizing 15-hou stretch and grant permission for only 1, hours looks like a subtle form of tormen although it may make sense to th distributors of publications.
Exemptions for special needs have bee made to meet specific complaints. As th legislation takes effect there may be mor complaints and more exemptions. By givin a general 14-hour dispensation the Ministr might have saved themselves a good deal c criticism and trouble.