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 
Is This a Pattern for Britain?
Page 85
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Titwork of the Interstate Commerce umission was the subject of last week's article. I would like to continue on this same theme because I (and many people in this country) believe that within the concept of the I.C.C. might lie the type of controlling authority which would suit this country's particular problems and requirements. I say this assuming, as I think most people now do, that our existing system of control is in need of extensive modernization.
My remarks basically are prompted by trying to answer the question: "What should we seek to control, quantity or quality in goods transport?" There is obviously a case for considering the American type of control Which, as I explained last week, limits the carrier to specified routes and traffics but leaves him free (within Construction and Use requirements) to operate as many vehicles as he chooses and of whatever type he requires.
Critics might say this would lead to vast increases in fleets. To that I answer "Baloney ". No operator will tie up more capital than he needs in expensive vehicles, merely to create an empire. Free competition will take care of that eventuality; but why should a haulier have *o come cap in hand to get permission for a switch, say, from rigid to articulated vehicles or for a longer-length trailer than he has hitherto used? This makes for inflexibility.
What does require licensing control is excessive competition on particular runs or for certain traffics.
Profit From Mistakes Of course, the I.C.C. set-up is not perfect; the people I spoke to were the first to admit that. But the idea behind it is sound. We could profit from their mistakes, particularly in the realms of exemptions; and such an organization would not be bedevilled by constitutional inability to control intra-State goods vehicles. In this country it would have complete control of all goods vehicles, public and private.
And when you really get down to brass tacks, is there any need for greater licence variety than those two categories? All other controls can be written into the licence.
What particularly interested me about the American control system were the filed rates, and the undisputed fact that the carriers I spoke to (both large and small) were in favour of them. There are very hefty penalties involved for noncompliance and this has the effect of sorting out the black sheep who, in any case, run the very real danger of having their franchise withdrawn.
Conditioned by British hauliers' vociferous dislike of rates control, and by the difficulties the Common Market Commission has run into in trying to establish forked rates (which, after all, are only semi-fixed rates), I quite expected to find American hauliers groaning under the burden. Not a bit of it. They fight like the devil over variatioa proposals, but they accept the principle of control.
Admittedly I only met a few operators; but they all made the same point, in different ways. It was this: having filed rates meant that regulated carriers were protected from the squeeze between rising costs and inflexible (and even depressed) rates that causes so much trouble to British hauliers. They were able to work on a reasonable net profit that enabled efficient service with good vehicles.
Control Over Drivers If, as they propose, the Road Haulage Association sends some study groups to the USA. this year, I fancy the British hauliers may come away with modified views about controlled rates. At least, they should get food for thought.
The I.C.C. has more control over drivers than there is in this country. But, as in other matters, the question of Federal bodies not being able to control State legislation complicates the Commission's work. They control drivers' hours, for instance, 50 far as regulated carriers are concerned. But the vast majority are not I.C.C.-controlled and hours of work vary tremendously from State to State. A process of individual education is adopted, and slowly more and more States are adopting I.C.C. regulations.
Drivers have to undergo regular medical examinations, which is no bad thing when you consider that a man might cover 400 miles in one tour of duty with a 40-ton vehicle in his charge and speeds of 50/60 m.p.h. not being uncommon. There are an increasing number of cases of heart failure among the 2m. drivers who are subject to I.C.C. control; small wonder the Commission is worried.
All regulated carriers have to file an annual report and also to file details of accidents, and the I.C.C. has the power to order a carrier to cease employing a driver who is known to be unsafe, Carriers are compelled to keep records relating to the conduct of each driver, periodically to review them and specifically to review them in the event of a serious accident, I.C.C. hours regulations are quite stringent. No driver may work more than 60 hours in any consecutive period of 168 hours, or more than 70 in 192 hours. No driver may be employed for more than 10 hours in any period of 24 hours unless he has eight consecutive hours off duty during, or immediately following, the 10 hours' aggregate driving time and within the 24-hour period.
Truck Talk Drivers the world over have their own language, and Americans are no exception. In typically transatlantic fashion, they have developed a colourful slang of their own. What price the following?
Cackle crate: Vehicle carrying live poultry. Dock walloper: Someone employed on the loading bank. Down in the corner: In creeper gear (sometimes referred to as "Down with Grandma "). Goose it: To " blip " the accelerator. Hauling post holes: Running empty. Kidney-buster: Hard-riding vehicle. Peach picker: Vehicle with highTslung cab. The hound: A Greyhound coach.
The question of driver-control is something virtually foreign to this country. It raises tempers in the States_ Meeting operators last September, Ernie Cox (who, as I said last week, heads the safety section of the motor carriers' bureau) Was asked whether he thought the I.C.C. should legislate new rules about drivers' qualifications so as to make disciplinary action mandatory and not subject to union intervention. This was his reply: "You cannot expect your government to bail you out of trouble with your union. If you cannot control your
drivers you do not deserve an certificate. Under the law, the I.C.C. certificate places complete responsibility on the carrier. I4e must discharge that responsibility or get out of business. If a management enters into a contract with a union, which closes the door to management exercising its responsibilities, then that management had better be ready to accept the consequences of that action,"
Part of the trouble, I suspect, is that the union concerned, the Teamsters, is quite _ frighteningly powerful. Whilst I was in America, the last stages were being set for a S600m. pay and conditions deal with the Teamsters, spread over a threeyear period. At first, employers' opposition was intense; by the time I arrived in America (several months after the claim was first submitted) they were divided. Ten days later they had signed on James Hoffa's dotted line. A very powerful union, the Teamsters,