Jack — knifing and compensation
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE CONSTRUCTION which Mr. Stephen Swingler puts upon simple facts is quite amazing. He is reported (CM Page 31, May 5) as saying that it is important to realize that incidents involving jack-knifing are not always caused by the vehicle, but might be the result of a collision. Why is it important to realize this? Is one form of jack-knifing less hazardous than another? And will this realization contribute to the peace of mind of the artic driver?
The figure of 10 per cent for jack-knife involvements is surprisingly low. Unfortunately the Parliamentary Secretary to the MoT is not reported as saying whether or not this includes artics equipped with anti-jack-knife devices. Therefore, we cannot deduce from his statement that the Hope device has not already made a significant contribution towards road safety.
The time defect with regard to the Hope device is that it commits the cardinal sin of dealing effectively with a problem.
Mr. Swingler apparently did not make it clear how the transport operator would stand financially should there be an official change of mind as the result of which the operator finds himself stuck with a vehicle whose connections are totally unsuited to take the AJD having bought such a vehicle as the result of Mr. Swingler's recent statement. Would the Government be prepared to compensate him for the increased cost?
R. W. MASTERS, 2 Fly Tree Close, Leeds 17