READERS WRITE
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What about the driver?
WHILE considerable publicity is being given to the standard of braking efficiency required of commercial vehicles to meet the Regulations which will become effective on January 1, 1968, I have not noticed any reference to the physical effort expected of the driver to achieve the efficiency stipulated.
Particularly in the instance of unassisted handbrakes, braking efficiency is related to the effort exerted by the driver. It is felt that the Ministry of Transport should publish their views on this aspect. If the required standard of efficiency can be attained with a comfortable margin in hand then the physical exertions involved may not be worthy of consideration, but in instances where the efficiency attained under test conditions comes slightly above or below the minimum figures, the matter of physical effort could be questioned, particularly when secondary braking is by means of existing handbrakes.
R. HARDING, Secretary, Hardings (Transport) Ltd., Bucks.
Only one kangaroo
BEFORE TOO many of your readers who may have been considering emigrating to Australia become discouraged, may I attempt to tone down some of the rather exaggerated criticisms of driving in that country expressed by Jim Best in his article in the December 30 issue.
First let me admit that, although I drove many thousands of miles during the five years I spent there, none of it was behind the wheel of a truck, but I did cover many of the main highways and numerous secondary roads, so feel qualified to comment.
To state that "main highways in Australia are little better than narrow dirt tracks often pitted with pot holes" might be considered by some to be gross libel. Nobody would claim that roads on the whole reach British "billiard table" standards, but most highways are well-surfaced for most of their length, and even those with a dirt or gravel surface are usually well graded. Bad spots can usually be found, but the one illustrated is far from typical; the upper left picture gives a better impression of an average main road.
Road surfaces are largely a matter of economics, and a brief study of population and road mileages will show why too much cannot be expected.
I feel somehow cheated that in perhaps 50,000 miles I only once encountered a kangaroo on the road in daylight, except on the little-used roads of Central Australia. Night driving is certainly more of a strain on this account, but even then my encounters were confined to Queensland. Anyway, a truck driver is relatively safe by virtue of his high position, unless he is unduly squeamish about running them down.
Mr. Best is right in stating that traffic rules are confusing. It is usually a case of "Rafferty's rules", or work it out as you go along, and, like driving in Rome, is stimulating if your nerves are good. However, I would say that, if Australian road manners are bad, the current standard in this country is almost equally so. The "give way to the right" law is the cause of many accidents, and in practice most drivers ignore it unless it is clearly safe to proceed. It is definitely not the practice to enter major roads at reckless speed either from right or left, any more than in this country.
I recall no greater incidence of crates and boxes on the highways than I've seen here. The deep ruts and sharp flints Mr. Best calls "considerable hazards" occur only on outback or minor roads which can seldom be called highways. Shattered windscreens are certainly not uncommon, but I've been surprised at the number I've seen here, including one on the M41 To state that Australian drivers don't dip their lights is ridiculous. If there are any offenders it is frequently truck drivers, whose high position makes them relatively immune. I have been far more bothered by dazzle on motorways and dual carriageways here, where a surprising number of drivers seem to think that they don't have to dip.
In five years I saw two snakes outside a zoo, and they were dead in the road. I was once bitten by a bull ant (rather like a wasp sting) through carelessness. A little care, and some noise walking in the bush, and these things are no trouble. The worst nuisances are the bush flies, for which there is no defence.
Driving in Australia is certainly tougher, requiring stronger nerves and more stamina. It is all a question of balance, whether the advantages of life there outweigh the disadvantages. Only a very small proportion of emigrants from Britain find that they do not. B. C. GREGSON, Kew, Richmond, Surrey
Dead as the dodo?
YOU HAVE published in the last few months numerous reports on higher braking standards. I think it is time you examined the specification of lower priced goods vehicle chassis.
For example we are repeatedly told that existing 7/8 ton twoaxle chassis with air over hydraulic split axle systems are quite acceptable. Who is kidding who!
On January 1 1968 the full effect of the higher standards will be apparent and one fact sticks out a mile. The three-line system is as dead as the dodo along with hydraulic brake systems and handbrakes!
If a purchaser buys anything but a vehicle with full air system brakes he is heading for trouble. Would you care expanding these points at length sometime please.
A. H. CARTER, Carter Engineering Co. Ltd., Tamworth, Staffs.
Aluminium panelling
THE ARTICLE, "Clad in stainless steel—at aluminium weight", in December 16 issue of COMMERCIAL MOTOR may have given rise to misunderstanding about the use of aluminium for panelling in commercial vehicles.
First, let me take the statement that "the saving in painting should more than compensate for the increased initial cost of £66 incurred when cladding in stainless steel compared with aluminium". For years most aluminium suppliers in Britain have been marketing a profiled sheet popular with both body builders and fleet operators. In most cases such panelling is left in its natural finish, completely unprotected. Some operators, of course, do paint their vehicles in company livery for advertising purposes. There is certainly no need to paint aluminium for protection. All that is required to preserve the appearance of aluminium vehicle panelling is regular cleaning to remove road grime. This would apply irrespective of the cladding material.
Then there is the claim that stainless steel has a higher impact resistance than aluminium. Comparing it gauge for gauge this is true. However, the stainless steel marketed for this purpose is, I believe, 28 swg (0.0148), compared with aluminium profiled panelling which is virtually always 18 swg (0.048).
It must also be remembered that aluminium has a low modulus of elasticity, only 10 x 106 lb/sq.in. with a corresponding ability to absorb impact energy. Furthermore, any damage is usually local to the point of impact and is not transmitted throughout the body.
E. E. AYRES, Engineering Services, British Aluminium Co. Ltd., London, S.W.1.