Opinions from Others.
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The E. ditor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use Of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only, and type.written by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibiltty for views expressed is accepted. In the case of experiences, names oJ towns or localities may be withheld.
Barring the Small Owner.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1560] Sir,—My company has been engaged for some little time in running motorbus and char-ii-bancs services in Scotland. Owing to the success which we have experienced in that district we have decided to open up various services in English districts, and particularly in the smaller market towns. In one or two places we have not experienced any difficulty in obtaining the necessary licences, but in one district, where it has been suggested that we should inaugurate a service, we find that the majority of the land and most. of the local power are controlled by a large railway company. Although influential inhabitants have told us that there is a splendid opening for a motor service, we find that wires are being pulled to prevent us obtaining the necessary licences. We consider that this is practically persecution, as the railway company does not wish to run a service, and it will not allow anybody else to do so. We are considering a scheme of working which will obviate the necessity of acquiring licences; but for reasons of policy we prefer not to go into details here. Having aired this grievance, and being of the opinion that ethers of your readers must have been at one time or another in the same position, we should be pleased if they would give us their opinion as to how best to overcome the difficulty, and how they managed in their own cases.—Yours faithfully, "DETERMINED."
The Road Must Suit the Motor.
A Reply to Fodens.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[15701 Sir.—In reference to Messrs. Fodens' letter No. 1560, in your issue of 30th May, 1912, I would venture to point out that there is no new suggestion embodied in the subject of the letter. The road has always been made for the vehicle, and never the vehicle for the road ; but there must he a limit.
The same cry was raised by the road-locomotive manufacturers, but it did not stop the law's being altered in such a way as practically to prevent the cross-country use of this economical method of transport. Hence the steam wagon. If Mr. Twemlow's arguments hold good, why not a 30-ton road locomotive running at 7 to 10 miles an hour ? Economy of transport would result to the users, but the taxpayers must be protected. In the same way that the use of the heavy road locomotive has been limited, so will the use of the steam wagon running with illegal axle-weights be curtailed. As the steam wagon took the place of the heavy road locomotive, so will the lighter and quicker internal-combustion vehicle take the place of the steam wagon.
The County Councils Association is not attacking commercial motoring, as suggested by Fodens Ltd. They only ask for a limit to be placed on the user—a reasonable and expedient suggestion under the circumstances. All internal-combustion vehicle owners should back up the County Councils Association in its request, remembering that the money for the upkeep of the roads is now mainly being drawn from their pockets. Will Fodens please state the hind-axle weight of its 5-ton standard steam wagon when the vehicle is loaded with 5 tons and the hind tank is
half fun ? The limiting of axle-weights need not frighten any engineer, nor will it cripple, but on the other hand will help to expedite, the development of what Messrs. Fodens. standing aghast at the wonder of their productions, designate as a " wonderful means of transport." Why this seeming dismay at the suggestion of the County Councils Association's proposals? When a restriction has been placed on the running of motor vehicles, it has -generally ended in improving the type, and I cite Sir Edward Henry's restrictions placed on the motorbus upon its introduction. Let us get to the facts. An axle-weight of 8 tons must not be exceeded under the present Heavy Motor Car Order, and this is the law. Under your "News and Comment," page 260 of the above issue, you point out, quite rightly, the law as regards trailer brakes. If every steam wagon was run with due regard to the law there would be no ground for complaint from the road authorities. However, since they complain, it should be pointed out that the road authorities have the means of preventing any illegal use of the roads, in their own hands under Article XII of the Heavy Motor Car Order. The reply to any suggestion on their part as to an alteration of axle-weights, is to. point out that few road authorities can tell exactly the actual axle-weights of the vehicles running on our roads. Until they take steps to ascertain these axleweights, it is useless for them to request in a general way the Local Government Board to diminish same.— Yours faithfully, "ACTING ENGINEER." Birmingham, 4th June.
[We do take the resolutions seriously—En.]
"Is There Persccution"?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1571] Sir,—In reply to " FairpIay's " letter No. 1543 in your issue of 2nd May, may I be allowed to draw attention to the following facts. Am I needlessly annoyed, as a ratepayer, at the fact of the cost of upkeep of country roads having increased by some 50 to 100 per cent, since the passing of the Heavy Motor Car Order ? I am a user of heavy motor vehicles, as well as of light motorcars. Ignorance of the facts alone can prevent other users of light motorcars from agreeing with me in my statements concerning the illegal use of roads by heavy motorcars. " Fairplay " informs us that "Those who engage in 'cheap transport' are eager to comply with alt. legal requirements." Then let " Fairplay ' have no fear, if he will show his eagerness to comply with the law, by doing so. Let him remember that cheap transport is no longer cheap, if carried on at the expense of the ratepayers, by increasing the cost of the upkeep of our roads, by the use of overloaded and overdriven vehicles.
The carrier and the user should know the weights they are carrying, or else they are unable to show that their business is being carried on at a profit or loss. " Fairplay " says this is not always possible --" neither is it easy to judge speed to an exact nicety." Has " Fairplay " never sees a speedometer ?
Let us put on one side the question of damage to roads and illegal loading, and only consider the Heavy Motor Car Order. If " Fairplay " comply with its requirements why should he worry ? He, as one of the heavy motor-wagon users, states that "Annoyed" probably "pays no more that his fair proportion to the upkeep of the roads." I in no way object to paying no more than my fair proportion, but I do object to the results of my no more than fair proportion being eaten up and misused by those users who do not pay any sum at all proportionate to the use of the roads, and who at the same time contravene without compunction the requirements of the Heavy Motor Car Order.—Yours faithfully,
" ANNOYED."