OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites cormspondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. _Letters should be on one side of the paper on,Zy cud typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for , views expressed is accepted.
The ,31 ton Ford.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,794] Sir,—In the " Wheels of Industry " columns of your issue dated January 11th, I noticed a reference to the-rumour that the Ford Motor Co. is about to manufacture a 31-ton conmiereial vehicle chassis. Whether this turns out to be true or not, it will certainly have made our manufacturers it up and take notice.
The ubiquitous Fordhas -never yet had a rival so far as value for money is concerned, and it behoves our designers serioetsly to consider this possible further encroachment into their • domain if a heavier vehicle-designed on similar lines. to the -present Ford is produced, and produced by the thousand. It is difficult to understand why no British mannlecturer has been able, or has thought it. worth while, to produce a chassis capable. of competing satisfactorily with the Ford, taking into consideration the additional cost to the sellers of this machine of trans-. portingsit, or its components, some thousands of miles, but if our Manufacturers cannot. compete with the smaller models, perhaps they will be able to do so with the new one, if it proves more than a myth.—
Yours faithfully, ANXIOUS. . Birmingham.
The Taxi-Hansom,
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,795] Sir,—Having now .owned a motor-cycle taxi
cab plying for hire in for just upon. one month, I read with interest the article an sidecar taxis in your issue of January 11th. . The running expenses, I am afraid, are considerably more than you estimated in your table. First, I find in petrol consumption we do not average more than 40 m.p.g. ; and, again, I could not get a reliable and competent driver who. would keep the machine clean and put. in the num. ber of hours, seven days a -week, for less than £4 perweek; and yet, again; I could not find an insurance company who would cover all risks (which, you will agree is essential)
for less than per annum. I must "also add that I had to equip my driver with the necessary weatherproof clothes, at a cast of 220, which will have to be repeated yearly, unless I am very much mistaken.
Now, the earnings of this machine, so far, have averaged 29 per week, so-taking the rest of your estimated .expenses as being fairly accurate, it does not leave a very fat profit. I am now ef the opinion that an owner-driver could just about mike. a living.. —Yours faithfully, A.D.
Children count as Adults.
• TheEditor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,79.6] Sira—I was greatly surprised to. hear from you that tie provision has been made in the scheme of taxation of motor co-aches for the difference in the seating accommodation. of a hackney vehicle When some or all of the passengers aie children. Your explanation has been confirmed by the local licensing authority in this town, and, in consequence, I find myself in a difficult situation, I often convey parties of children, and can easily put 45 or 50 children in a 32Lsentor coach. The fare for a child must necessarily be lower than that for an adult, and I must, therefore, either conduct at a loss this portion of the service which I provide, or I must take the risk of a prosecution for overloading. And I E20
don't like to put in print iny opinion of the Bench by whom such a. change againstme would have to be heard!
Can we not get together. a cornmatee of users in order to secure revision of the schedule in the next Finance Bill? Will somebody move in the matter? We have only a month or two in which to prepare a scheme to lay before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I dare swear that half a dozen practical 'men could hit out the revised' schedule in an. afternoon.—Yours faithfully,
The Small Man Wants a Champion.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTUR.
[1,797] Sir,—I have carefully studied your articles on taxation, and .a..na greatly obliged to you for your letter clearing up the matters upon which I required hut-her enlightenment.
On the swhole, I have to come to the conclusion that the incidence of taxation is going to bear hardly upon the little man. To some it is going to be a heavy tax to find the large sum ibquired
the beginning of the year (without exception, the period when money is short and when there are so many outgoings,. with little oe nothing coming in), and the injustice of the heavy additional charge if one cannot afford the yearly lump sum, but is compelled to take quarterly licence-s, rankles very much with me, as I am sure it does with others. Why not have permitted us to take half-yearly licences, and have kept the additional charge to some reasonable figure--say, an added 10 per cent., which would have been more than enough-to cover the small amount of clerical Work involved after the first. licence has been issued in respect of vehicles?
. Can pressure be brought to bear upon the -C.M.U.A, so that the matter may come up for discussion at the next meeting of the National Council, in order that the Council may he moved to approach the Ministry of Transport on_ behalf of the owners of single vehicles (goods and hackney carriages) and small fleet0 The fault is that the annalI man, even in the bulk, has but a small voice in the proceedin,gs of the CounCil, and lacks a ehampion.—Youra -A SaiALL. MAN. Earnsley.
The Expensive Quarterly Licences._
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,793] Sir,—In reference to the new motor licences foe commercial vehicles, etc., the added charge in respect of quarterly payments appears to me to be very unfair; and will, I think, prove a great hardship on the small man, as, for instance, one. who is trying to get a living, say, with a three ton veRiele. To pay down about £28 at once is rather a large item for the small usir, but for the authorities to charge £5 12s. on top of the 228 if a user wants to pay 'quarterly -is what one May call profiteering by the Government.
In fact, it seems to me, and must seem to. others, a direct blow at the small man. I wonder what other of your readers think of it?
Even 10 per cent. added for quarterly payments would be a lot, as it. is not lending one anything, all that is given being the advantage of paying in three-monthly instalments. Business firths are more lenient, than this by far.—Yours faithfully, A. G. GAITNTLETT.