'I am forced to defend the truck against ill-informed opinion'
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
‘ know it's not my imagination—it is a fact. I The industry which pays all our wages is burdened with legislation. Most of it is necessary, but some is forced upon us by our perceived poor image with the public. When people learn of my occupation, I am forced to defend the truck against illinformed opinion about pollution, safety and environmental damage.
Against this background, we are about to receive nonsense legislation to bring in 44tonne payloads by the back door.
Some believe this will move traffic from road to rail; it may well have the opposite effect—especially in Scotland. In the proposed legislation there is no limit to the distance to railhead which could mean northern hauliers trun king even more traffic to the south of England. When the Channel Tunnel is open this traffic will presumably go too railhead near the tunnel for shipment to the Continent. However; it may well be removed From the train somewhere in France and end up doing 80 to 90% of its journey by road. Irish hauliers are quick to grasp an opportunity and the less scrupulous among them might be tempted to trunk at 44 tonnes to railheads in southern England. In theory they should trunk to a railhead nearest the port of entry but the legislation says nothing about this. At present I have seen no mention of VED changes but if they come this method of taxation will turn into a bigger muddle than it is already. Presumably rigs will pay more tax when running at the increased weight but will there be enough traffic to run full time at 44 tonnes or do you claim back tax when running at 38 tonnes? It is time to scrap VED and put extra tax on derv. Let us all pay for the roads we use and make those who avoid VED pay their way.
On plating and testing of 44-tonne rigs— will operators plate up for combined transport and downplate for ordinary transport? I do not understand why we have to downplate, weakening tried and tested design, to save money on VED.
Presumably, when running at 44 tonnes, a piece of paper from your customer will be required to say you are going to a railhead. What's to stop some bright boy running off a supply and hauling all over the country never going near a railhead? For once I sympathise with our friends in traffic enforcement who will have to ask: "Are you running at 44 tonnes? Have you a document to state which railhead you are going to? Are you displaying the right VED? Is your rig, properly plated and tested?"—in addition to all the other questions they usually ask. Will I be able to charge my customers properly for running at 44 tonnes? If the experience of going up to 38 tonnes is anything to go by customers will expect to pay the same per tonne hauled and in some cases will want to pay less. Running costs will be higher but many hauliers will not take this into consideration and ripples will go through the industry with a possible cut in haulage rates—rates which are already ludicrously low. Our biggest overhead is wages. Once again we may get it wrong by creating a new wage band for 44 tonnes. This is unnecessary when many hauliers already operate at six axles with the driver benefiting from running light. IF the Government can't bring in 44 tonnes in a proper manner to put Britain in line with our European friends, why bother to create a monster?