cEimui Zg'T
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Send a Spare Fund
A SHORT note to thank both of you, your staff and, of course, all the readers of Commercial Motor for your extremely generous cheque for £14,000 towards our work in Ethiopia. All of us in the Fund are extremely grateful to you, not only in the sense of your great generosity, but also because your commitment and support is a great morale booster to our field staff.
Most of this staff work under very tough and depressing circumstances and the realisation that they enjoy your support does make all the difference to their personal morale when they face a disaster of such magnitude.
I do hope that our joint endeavour of producing a project which might provide us with logistic expertise in future disasters will flourish.
With grateful thanks and every good wish.
HUGH MACKAY Director Overseas Department The Save the Children Fund London SE5
C5 'dangerous'
I READ your article on the Sinclair C5 (CM, March 9) with interest. Having nearly collected
a C5 recently, I must agree with you that they are dangerous. Quite frankly, I think they should be banned, or at least restricted in some way, since they are putting at risk the lives of not only their drivers, but also of pedestrians and other road users who can be injured as a result of motorists' taking emergency avoiding action.
In my case, I was travelling home at dusk in London rushhour traffic. On a straight and reasonably wide piece of road well known to me, I decided to overtake a slow-moving BSM Metro in front. As I pulled out and accelerated, a C5 suddenly
appeared, pulling out into the centre of the road to make a right turn. It had been in front of the Metro and totally hidden from my view.
Please note, though, that had
I been driving a Scania 92, this near-miss would not have occurred since I would have been able to see ahead of the Metro. I was driving a low sports car and had no chance of seeing him. The C5 presents problems for all other road users, not just hgv drivers. This, I think, is an important point. The C5 is so low that it is harder to see than a cyclist. Personally, I'd ride a bike in the London suburbs, but I wouldn't touch a C5, even on a country lane.
DAVID C. CHESLIN Dunelm Public Relations London EC1
Overland on autopilot
I WAS interested to read A. G. McHarg's letter (CM February 16) and wonder whether he has heard of the not-so-new technology known as a "railway", on which he can indulge his fantasies right now.
He could drive his vehicle and its container to Gushetfaulds Freightliner marshalling yard, and have the box delivered to Willesden marshalling yard overnight, where a manual associate vehicle could collect, or the container could travel further by train. He can ''whizz from Glasgow to London" without even driving while he sits with his feet up reading Commercial Motor, nibbling a tasty haggis sandwich and even "accompanied with a wee drappie of the Cratur".
He can "look forward to the day" in the very near future, like today, tomorrow, or any day of the year except Christmas and Boxing Day. No multiple motorway collisions, no speeding problems (it's
100mph all the way!), tailgating, or hindrance in fog. Ain't science wonderful, folks?
D. V. WILLIAMS Stanford Lincolnshire
Don't conceal offences from LAS
WE REFER to your article Monro's Escape (CM February .9) and the letter from one of your readers referring to the question of "reporting of convictions liable to effect good repute or competence".
It is evident that the majority of operator licence holders are unaware of the requirement, as laid down by the Licensing Authority, to report such matters within 28 days.
Many of our clients have expressed ignorance of this fact, but as was pointed out at a recent public inquiry to one of our clients, on signing for the application for an operator's licence or the renewal thereof, there is a paragraph and statement to the effect that — "all convictions appertaining to the operation company must be reported accordingly".
During this public inquiry it was also pointed out that ignorance of this was no excuse.
However, we pointed out that many drivers may be unaware of the necessary requirement to report back to the operator licence holder and many drivers may feel that to do so would jeopardise their employment.
If a driver is apprehended and subsequently cautioned on an hours law offence, normally the authority so doing would seize the tachograph charts relevant to the period of time, and this in turn would indicate to the operator that the driver is facing a possible conviction.
The requirement to report back is 28 days from the date of conviction, not the date of offence. During this time, which can span many months, it may be forgotten to report to the Licensing Authority.
There are other circumstances which may allow the driver to hide from the operator a potential conviction and, indeed, it may never come to the operator's attention that the driver has been convicted. To overcome all these problems we suggest that two actions are taken:
1) It becomes part of the driver's contract of employment that he must inform the operator (ie, the employer) within three working days of any caution which could lead to a conviction for whatever matter relating to his vehicle or himself.
2) It is an automatic
requirement of the company's legal representatives to write to the Licensing Authority on their behalf once a conviction is known. A letter from the company to its legal representatives instructing them to do this will help to mitigate in the event of an inquiry.
It is also suggested that operators keep records of drivers' letters of discipline arising from convictions as evidence, if necessary, to show compliance.
C. B. WARD Director or analysis Rutac (Southern) Hayling Island Hampshire