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 
rime for recovery
Page 4
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
:OVERY VEHICLE operators have moved up the transport social ladder at ljr rate in the last three years. When CM sponsored the first vehicle Dvery conference in 1977, the recovery operators' reputation was worse n that of the tipper operators in the early Sixties. It was a reputation ered by a few but applied universally.
rhose days are fast receding and many of today's legitimate recovery n would welcome a form of licensing — they already have their own ociation and house journal. They discourage "ambulance chasing" and cutting, and they don't keep the service they offer to themselves — as 1 2 pages of advertisements in this issue demonstrate.
Recovery operators are making it clear that they have nothing to hide, are prepared to work illegitimately, and employ only skilled people and per equipment. This is all to the good. But what of the authorities? Have y ever had operators asking to be licensed before? Yet they do nothing )ut it.
This is the latest sector of the industry lave won respect by its own efforts. It nts to maintain and enhance its • d-won reputation. Official recognition uld be more than flattery: it would be tified.