Questions Answered
Page 69
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE wide use to, which The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs are put is instanced in queries submitted by readers. In addition to the more obvious uses by both professional operating and ancillary users, traders and industrialists who do not operate their own vehicles find them convenient for checking haulage accounts. They are also used as an impartial yardstick when disputes arise in such matters as insurance claims involving loss of use.
A typical example of this type of query has been made from a reader in the north west who is acting on behalf of an operator involved in an accident with another commercial vehicle. There apparently appears little doubt that the client's driver was to blame, with the third party claiming compensation for loss of earnings during the time their lorry was being repaired. .
As is not unusual with this type of action the actual event took place in 1960 and there is correspondingly some doubt as to the correct figure to use in making a fair calculation of the loss of earnings, bearing in mind that the vehicle was not new at the time. The reader finds it difficult to reconcile the operating costs shown in the successive editions of "The Tables" for 1958 and 1960, whilst the issue is further complicated by the vehicle in question being referred to as a 10-ton four-wheeler in the quality class.
Regarding this latter point it is first necessary to point out that the term "a 10-ton four-wheeler" appears to be somewhat misleading for a vehicle in this class. As the legal maximum gross weight for four-wheeled vehicles of standard type is 14 tons and the unladen weight of the particular make of vehicle specified by the reader, even with the minimum platform body, is appreciably over 4 tons, it follows that the maximum load that could be legally carried must be well under 10 tons. This factor must obviously have a bearing on the maximum earnings that could be expected for this particular vehicle. Incidentally, it should be added that the whole of the calculations in "The Tables" are, of course, based on the assumption that the vehicles concerned are operated so as to meet legal requirements in all respects.
REVISION OF TABLES Regarding the revision of successive Tables of Operating Costs this was originally done every two years, coinciding with the biennial Commercial Motor Show, which practice applied in 1958 and 1960. Since 1960 the tables have been published annually. _.
In making these successive revisions many factors have to be taken into account, in addition to simple increases in prices and costs. Thus, for example, since the War the range of mass-produced commercial vehicles has widened so that their maximum carrying capacity has got much nearer to, and in some cases overlapped, those of the quality produced vehicles such as the one specified by this reader. For this reason, when comparing successive edtions of "The Tables", as in this case for 1958 and 1960, it will be noticed that the range of vehicles in Table Two has been adjusted so that in the 1960 edition the maximum carrying capacity is shown as 7 tons. Moreover, all calculations relative to such matters as depreciation were based on the knowledge that the whole of these vehicles were considered to be in the massproduced range. Correspondingly, in the same 1960 edition, the range of vehicles in Table Three starting with four-wheeled vehicles with 8 and 9 tons carrying capacity were similarly considered to consist solely of quality produced vehicles. A substantially higher mileage life was naturally assumed for this class of vehicle than for the mass-produced vehicles shown in Table Two. This had a corresponding effect on such items as interest and depreciation.
When such re-arrangements of the range of vehicles shown in a particular table have to be made—not necessarily with each successive edition—it is unfortunate that there will inevitably be some apparent anomalies in particular instances when comparisons are made between successive editions. While the value of being able to make such comparisons is appreciated, the prime objective in any revision must be the maximum accuracy relative to the prevailing conditions at the time of the revision.
In view of the information supplied by this reader, namely that the accident occurred in 1960, it would seem that the cost given in the 1960 edition of "The Tables" would be relevant, namely those applied to a 9-ton four-wheeled vehicle as set out in Table Three of that edition.
A provision merchant states that he is considering purchasing estate cars for use by his representatives to sell foods from the vehicles and asks for advice on the following points, having accepted that a C licence will be necessary. He asks whether they would be restricted to a speed limit of 40 miles per hour when not carrying goods, and would it be necessary for the driver to conform to this speed limit and complete drivers' records when using the vehicle privately at week-ends.
Assuming that the estate ears to which this reader refers come within the legal category of a dual-purpose vehicle, it would not be restricted to any speed limit other than those which apply generally in built-up areas. This is because the speed restrictions applying to particular groups of vehicles are determined by their construction and not the use to which they may be put and, in this respect, dual-purpose vehicles are classed along with private cars.
Whilst a dual-purpose vehicle is being used privately and not carrying goods other than personal effects, it would not be considered a goods vehicle. There would consequently be no need for a carrier's licence and no obligation on the driver to keep records or be subject to the restrictions on hours of work and periods of rest.
As appreciated by this reader a C licence would be necessary when goods, as distinct from private effects, were being carried in the vehicle, whilst the excise duty would also have to be paid appropriate to the class of work to which the vehicle was put. Once the vehicle is used and licensed as a goods vehicle it then becomes necessary for the driver to complete records and comply with the limitations on his hours of work and periods of rest. A point to be borne in mind here is that if the goods it is proposed to carry could be conveniently placed in a private car, as distinct from an estate car falling in the category of a dual-purpose vehicle, then these rather restrictive and irksome duties would not be necessary. The cost of operating used vehicles is the subject of another inquiry.
Unfortunately only the barest ;details are given of the vehicle purchased, but even if more details had been supplied as to the approximate condition of this particular vehicle it would still not.be-pOssible to estimate, with any worthwhile accuracy, the ultimate actual cost of operating such a vehicle. This is because there is virtually no limit to the possible variations in the mechanical condition of used vehicles, quite apart from whether they still continue to meet legal requirements. Such variations must obviously substantially affect the cost of maintenance.
Moreover, when dealing with standard estimates of operating costs there is an implied assumption that the operator will provide a reasonable standard of service to his customer free of breakdowns, or at least only on rare occasions. Maintenance costs are assessed accordingly.
Another obvious assumption is that the operator intends remaining in business so that adequate provision has to be made for the inevitable replacement of vehicles. Should a used vehicle be purchased, then its remaining useful life will be less and consequently the sum set aside for depreciation must be higher than would be the case of a new vehicle, On balance, therefore; the higher cost of maintenance and depreciation, which are virtually inevitable when operating a used vehicle, will at least balance, if not more than outweigh, any saving on capital• outlay.
The change in speed limitation as from February 9 this year is the subject of an inquiry from another. reader, and particularly in connection with dual-purpose vehicles. He states that he has been informed that under the new regulations a Maximum' of 40 miles per hour has been prescribed for this class of vehicle.
For the standard type of dual-purpose vehicle this impression is incorrect as no limit is prescribed, and for all practical purposes they are classed as private cars in this respect.
For a ready and clear understandingof the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations 1962 it is perhaps unfortunate that the classification of vehicles does not follow directly the categories stated in Section 253 of the.Road Traffic Act 1960. In this section these categories are defined as motorcars, heavy motorcars, motor tractors, light 'locomotives and heavy Iocomotives.•
In the speed limit regulations there is a variation of this
classification, the first two sections being concerned with "passenger vehicles" and " goods vehicles ". ft-is left to the reader of the regulations to deduce by a process of elimination' that a particular vehicle is not included in these regulations and is therefore free from speed limitation other than would apply generally in a built-up area.
It so happens that the speed regulations do state that passengers vehicles and dual-purpose vehicles are limited to a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour at all times, but with the qualification that they exceed certain specifications. As this happens to be an unladen weight exceeding 3 tons or a capacity to carry seven passengers exclusive of the driver it means that, in effect, most dual-purpose vehicles would not fall into this definition of "passenger vehicles" and are therefore free of speed restriction.
It is further stated in Regulation 14 that "a dual-purpose vehicle" means a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passengers and their goods or burden of any description and satisfy the conditions therein set out relative to such items as seating and window area.
These regulations are obtainable from H.M. Stationery Office, price 8d.
LOADING REGULATIONS Information as to the present regulations concerning the loading of vehicles is requested by another reader.
Basically these are set out in Regulation 73 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1955 and briefly all vehicles must be in such condition, together with their loads that no danger is likely to be caused to any person either on the vehicle or, on the road.
In the 1955 regulations it was further required that the load carried by any vehicle should be so secured that danger was not likely to be caused by reason of the load or any part of it falling from the vehicle. An addition to this latter requirement adds the words "or by reason of any other movement of the load or any part thereof in relation to the vehicle ". This is set out in Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1962.
The following regulation could also have a bearing on the load carried. It states that no motor. vehicle or trailer shall be used for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause, or be likely to cause, danger to any person on the vehicle or trailer or on the road.