OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 26
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the Paper only and typewritten byit,reference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no resPonsibulity for views
expressed is accepted,
Safety of Bus Passengers.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
L23571 Sir,—After reading the leader in the issue of The Commercial Motor for May 12th on the above subject, I should like to say that for the past three years the Hyde Town Council have conducted an annual inspection of buses and hackney carriages.
In the first place, the Hyde Town Council applied to me to make arrangements in co-operation with the health inspector. The owners were notified and a careful inspection was made of each vehicle.
In the first year faults were found in the design of the bodies and suggestions made to the owners, and I might say that the owners were found to be quite keen to fall in with the suggestions, which were: exit doors opening both ways; tanks altered to be filled from the outside ; the carrying of fireextinguishers, also improvements as to the braking systems, which were taken up with the manufacturers, who sent their representatives to the Isle of Wight, and alterations were effected by them at no expense to the owners.
It has, therefore, been my pleasant experience that local authorities can, with gentle persuasion, effect a general all-round improvement if they will arrange an annual inspection ; but I would like to add that the inspecting authority should obtain, if possible, a local competent commercial motor agent or engineer who has had some lengthy experience, so that the owners can know that they are getting suggestions from a man who can give a practical reason for his criticism. In our case, some hundred vehicles come up for annual inspection, and the percentage of efficiency in the three years has risen from 75 per cent, to 90 per cent.
personally, should be pleased to give any information to any parties interested in the above matter.—Yours faithfully, HAROLD H. HAPGOOD.
Ryde, Isle of Wight.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2358] Sir,—I am very glad to see that in the leading article in the issue of The Commercial Motor for May 12th attention is again called to the very unsatisfactory state of affairs regarding the licensing of buses which are unsuitably equipped so far as fire risks are concerned, feel that, in keeping this matter to the front, you are not only doing a public service, but are acting in the interests of those who run buses which are properly equipped. Fires and other accidents which are preventable can only inflict injury on the passenger-carrying industry.
It is clear to anyone who has given the matter attention that such fires as the one which occurred at Nuneaton, and the one to which you called attention at Lyndhurst, can, and should, be made Impossible by properly placed petrol tanks and filling arrangements. Even in the case of existing buses, all that is necessary is to have the filler of the petrol tank brought to the outside of the vehicle and any boards that may be under the tank should be replaced with iron stays, so that any petrol spilt should drop on the ground. If this simple precaution were taken, the principal cause of danger would have been removed. To me It is only a matter of common sense and requires no special knowledge on the part of those responsible for granting licences. One would think that any person possessed of ordinary intelligence B42 would at once see the danger of having the filler of the tank inside the body.
There are a few other simple precautions which might be taken, such as covering the exhaust pipe where it passes under the petrol tank, for, although a red heat such as one gets in an exhaust pipe will not ignite petrol should it drop on it, a leaky joint in the pipe might do so. The carrying of petrol cans under the seats of a bus might be forbidden, as there is a remote probability of leakage or of the can being damaged.
I have been told by provincial police superintendents that they would welcome some rules and regulations which would enable them to see whether a vehicle submitted for licenaing was safe so far as fire risks are concerned. Might I suggest that the Ministry should publish and distribute a set of simple rules for the guidance of those in authority who wish to be informed and have no special knowledge on the subject? I cannot help feeling strongly on the subject of accidents which are preventable, as I have been present at three inquests on the victims of coach accidents, including Nuneaton, all of which could have been avoided if the persons responsible had been better informed.
With regard to your efforts to get the Ministry of Transport to move in the matter, I should like to suggest that, when that body does wake up to Its responsibility (after a few more people have been burnt alive or otherwise killed), some responsible person familiar with motor construction and running should be appointed to advise coroners. Coroners cannot be expected to be experts in everything ; hence, in colliery and railway accidents they are assisted by properly appointed experts who know what should be, and what should not be, allowed. I have heard evidence given at inquests which, had I been the coroner, would have justified me in finding a verdict of manslaughter instead of accidental death.—Yours
faithfully, ONLOOKER. London.
The Protest of the Bus Independents.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2359] Sir,—The point raised by your correspondent .regarding numbering of London omnibus services only emphasizes the laity that officialdom was able to interfere with the long-tried and useful scheme evolved by the various proprietors. The usefulness of the old arrangement to the public was that, supposing a man at King's Cross inquired the way to Hammersmith, one could say : "Take one of the 73's." To be conscientiously accurate now (and to save him wasting time) one must mention 73, 173, 174 and 202—all adding to the confusion of the unfamiliar traveller and thus defeating the first object of displaying service numbers to the public. The confusion is worse confounded by all of these services having minor variations which call upon all the letters of the alphabet—at any rate down to M.
Tramways, by the way, seem to be immune from police interference, and provide four services numbered "7 "—two by the London County Council (Holborn-Highgate Road; Leyton-Docks) ; London United (Shepherd's Bush-Uxbridge), and South Metropolitan (Croydon-Sutton). Might one suggest Mr. Davis took this matter up?
The writer is not connected with omnibus operation, but, so far, It has seemed to him that any endeavour on the part of the independent o-wnerS
to establish regular services has always been mercilessly crushed by the Combine ; we remember the late Mr. Frost-Smith's service from Ealing to Farnborough, started at the end of 1922, where each petrol-electric bus ran to the accompaniment of four specially detailed Combine vehicles. Under the Traffic Act, as pointed out in your •columns by Mr. F. W. Macquisten, M.P., chasing still continues, but, in spite of this, there are at least thirty services on which independent owners operate at regular intervals throughout the day.
The public owes something to the independent owners, partly for maintaining service in strikes and bringing down fares, but equally for the increased comfort brought about in London omnibuses generally. Many cross-country services formerly operated with the B-type stock have had the latest vehicles put into service by the Combine immediately on the appearance of a comfortable independent, for example. The appearance of the independent service 525 seems, for instance, to have been accompanied by the operation of NS vehicles in place of B's on concurrent L.G.O. services. It is, perhaps, not too much to say that the L.G.O.C. would never have been stimulated to -build the admittedly excellent NS type but for the new competitors. I understand, however, that the comfort war will shortly be carried a bit farther by the introduction of some independently -operated pneumatic-tyred vehicles—all of which is to the public good.
The disabilities of the independents seem to be, shortly, that they are still not immune from "chasing," although hampered in doing anything for their own protection; that indiscriminate restriction of streets available frequently diverts the independent's route without real necessity ; that the service numbers allotted (e.g., 541a or 565) are useless from the publicity viewpoint, and that they are harried by the police when drivers are taking meals, whether they remain on the official stands or remove their buses to a distance.—Yours faith fully, • CHAS, F. KLAPPER, Bow, London, E.3.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
122601 Sir,—I read with interest the letter from Mr. Graham Davis in the issue of The Commercial Motor of May 12th under the heading "The Protest of the Bus Independents." I should be glad if Mr. Davis would give details of the "general laxity that is still only too apparent." Overcrowding takes place, I admit, but are the independents the only culprits in this matter? City workers, anxious to get home from their day's business, do not bother about overcrowding. Also the question of what constitutes overcrowding is extremely vague—the matter is practically in the hands of the individual policeman. Why should the police be so anxious to prevent overcrowding on buses when the trams can travel with almost as many passengers standing as sitting and with even the steps and platforms blocked? I wonder if the "much maligned and long-suffering Combine" goes out of its way to prevent these things happening on its own tramways?
What proof has Mr. Davis that independents fail to maintain scheduled services? Schedules may be deposited in which the service interval and the ntimber of buses vary at different times of the day and on different days of the week. The only way to prove that a scheduled service has not been run is to take a copy of any particular schedule and to check the service on the road. (Schedules may be seen and extracts Made therefrom at any reasonable time at the Ministry of Transport, according to the Traffic Act.) Has Mr. Davis ever done this?
With regard to service numbers, I think there is much room for improvement on both sides. In this matter, too, the independents have some
cause for complaint. When the routes were renumbered the new numbers given to General services bore, as a rule, some resemblance to the previous numbers. Thus 10a became 100, 234 became 123, 25a became 125. But has the same consideration been shown to the independents? What relation is there between the Cambrian 285 and the old 17? Why should the National and East Surrey Companies, which are connected with the Combine, apparently have the whole of the three and four hundreds to themselves? The National only operates services 301 to 310, while the East Surrey operates 401 to 414, yet the independents in London have to use numbers well in the five hundreds, which confuse would-be passengers. Take also the question of Sunday extensions. The General operates a service to Cranbrook Park, which is extended on Saturday afternoons and Sundays to Chigwell Row. The extension Is numbered 26, while the week-day working to Cranbrook Park is 26a. But, in the case of the independents, who maintain a regular 9-minute service from North -Woolwich, the week-day service to Cranbrook Park is 256, while the extension to Chigwell Row, which also comes from North Woolwich taking the same route as the General between Ilford and Chigwell Row, is numbered 541.
I wonder, sometimes, whether we are any better off for the collection of letters after the service numbers. We used to get on very well without special letters for short workings. Presuming, however, that they are a benefit, I think, with your correspondent, that all services should be correctly lettered. But if we are to have renumberings every month or two, one is not surprised if the independents do not bother I I admit that there are independents who are careless on this matter, but, on the whole, I think they run under the right letterings. Witness services 591, 59m and 121 i I might point out that on a recent Sunday two General buses, both marked 96b, were seen going westward, • one to Mile End Gate and the other to Putney Bridge ! These were probably working to their respective garages, but should not the public convenience be considered even then'? On the General "Renumbering List," issued last December, 100a was stated as being "Elephant and Castle and Loughton Garage," but I have yet to see a bus marked 100a going to Loughton Garage. All I have seen have been 100b, ending almost a mile away at the "Crown." Although a number of buses work on to the garage, they do not bother to alter the letter.. The General service 86 goes " home " as 86, although Barking Garage is probably nearly three miles from Manor Park Broadway, •where the bus leaves the route of 86.
In conclusion, may I say that, while I agree with Mr. Davis that some " tightening-up " is necessary, it is required by both Combine and Independent buses.—Yours faithfully, Cambridge. War. JACKSON.