Opinions and Queries
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Not So Autocratic
'y \TOUR leader of June 28 hammers home what 1 have OUR saying for some weeks—that the increases in insurance premiums, which range from one-eighth to one-third, should be justified in detail by the tariff offices.
I suggested in a letter to The Financial Times (June 20) that the law should be changed to make insurers subdivide their world-wide motor accounts into sections: foreign and home, home to be further split between pre-1947 and post-1947 cars, A-, Band C-licence vehicles, and public service types. This would help all classes to know whether they are being " done " or not: Perhaps you can use your influence to promote such legislation.
But may I argue on two points you raise? .1 would like evidence to show that _any non-tariff office will accept any large vehicle at about half the tariff rate, as you suggest. By and large, non-tariff and Lloyd's premiums offer a small saving for business they will accept, but nothing like 20 per cent., let alone 50 per cent.
You also say that re-zoning means an increase of up to 70 per cent, in some• cases, but the re-zoning is an attempt to correct an old absurdity, which allowed an operator to move his garage a few yards outside (say) the Metropolitan Police area, and save a large slice of his annual premium.
I heartily agree with you that operators should be extremely cautious in engaging drivers. In my experience many C-licensees take no precautions at all. But I think you are unfair to insurers in suggesting that premiums are not justly apportioned between individuals. Underwriters have to rate risks according to information supplied to them.
As for "accident-proneness," how is it to be measured? We may have driven cars for 30 years or longer without disaster, but anything can happen tomorrow.
I .ondon, E.C.4.
P. D. PIKE,
Messrs. P. D. Pike and Co. (Incorporated Insurance Brokers).
B.R.S. Scheme Criticized
FIRST let me say that we at Crompton have been reading The Commercial Motor each week for many years and appreciate the sound sense contained in it. Having read your articles concerning the 10-hour day and 15 per cent, bonus scheme to be instituted by British Road Services, which were published in your issues dated June 14 and 21, I would say that whoever wrote these knows what he is talking about.
I have been in the haulage industry for nearly 40 years, and as a committee member of the Widnes Chamber of Commerce I have stated my views on this matter at committee meetings of the Chamber. They are similar to those contained in a letter I wrote recently to the Road Haulage Association and which can be summed up as follows:
With regard to the scheme for reduced working hours and a bonus devised by British Road Services, we have been in haulage for 40. years and have never previously come across a set-up like this. In theory it looks nice, but it is our opinion that in practice it is Worth nothing. If a 10-hour day is fixed instead of
the present 11, it will mean that on many a second journey will not be made and there will be loss instead of gain. Hauliers already have to contend with delays at loading and unloading points in transit and at* docks. Our country is fighting for its existence, and this scheme appears to us to be another stab in the back.
In our view it would be a great mistake to reduce the working hours and to grant this bonus.
Could it be that B.R.S., by being amenable to this shorter working day, combined with a bonus, will go into the red? Perhaps the so-called free hauliers will eventually be asked to agree to a levy to help them out!
Crompton, near Widnes. J. HEWsON,
Messrs. J. Hewson and Sons (Engineers and haulage contractors).
A Maintenance Problem
IN your issue of June 7 you published an appreciation I of the new Ford Thames Trader, in which the author stated that the vehicle under test was taken into our workshops, where it had been arranged with Mr. D. Malone, the service manager, that space should be made available for him to conduct a series of maintenance tests.
Following a mild criticism of the tools available in the standard kit, and much later in the article, he said that it was found that no spanners were available for certain bolts.
The inference is that these spanners were not available in our, workshops, which seems to cast an undesirable reflection on our ability to service these vehicles.
It had been suggested to the author that he should take the vehicle to Dunstable, where we specialize in heavy commercial vehicle repairs and have a completely equipped injection service shop, but this offer was declined. As our workshops at Luton were full to capacity with cars and light vans, premises used solely for the receipt and pre-delivery preparation of new cars were cleared so that he could carry out his inspection undisturbed. If some responsible member of our organization had been told that he required the loan of tools, these would have been immediately forthcoming.
We think, it possible that he did not intend what he wrote to be a criticism of our Service facilities, but comment already received shows that it is capable of being so construed.
Luton, Beds.
H. A. COuRTNEY, Joint Managing Director, The Luton Motor Co., Ltd.
[We regret thatany misconstruction such as that mentioned haS been placed upon certain paragraphs in this -article. We would point out that it is our custom, when conducting road tests, to make use only of the tools and equipment provided as standard with the vehicles concerned. This is well known to most people and we arc surprised to learn that the small amount of running maintenance performed by us in these Circumstances shOuld have resulted in any criticism of the service normally given by this company. This was not intended and would have been a poor return for the facilities kindly placed at our disposal.--En.1