Crazy Gang T HE recurrent fascination of the subject of the
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
speed limit for heavy goods vehicles may be akin to the perennial delight of the public in the type of variety show where the applause for a serious artistic performance is drowned in the welcome for the next turn, invariably a burlesque on its predecessor. The exquisite pas de deux becomes a wrestling match; the music returns excruciatingly out of tune; the conjurer's trousers disappear instead of the rabbit; and the singer's flawed top notes are finally silenced with a bucket of water. To add to the confusion, members of the cast leave the stage and hurl insults from the auditorium. If the Crazy Gang has nothing on the speed-limit controversy, the reason may be that they have both been going on for a very long time.
Particularly active some time ago was a body with the somewhat Victorian title of committee of trade, industry and vehicle manufacturers on the raising of the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. This committee played the act straight. Each of the many interests represented had its own theme, but it blended with the others and added to the total significance. The orchestration was admirable, and the statements froth the committee were as convincing in their own way as the performance of a classical symphony.
They still represent the serious approach to the subject. Trade and industry say that the 20-nn.p.h. speed limit is out of date, Sand that the proposed increase to 30 m.p.h. would not make the roads any less safe. Vehicle operators say that the arbitrary division at 3 tons of unladen weight forces them to place a disproportionate value on lightness of construction. Manufacturers say that the consequent peculiar demands of the home market make the export problem unnecessarily difficult. Users say that the higher limit would speed up transport and make it cheaper. All the interests concerned agree that drivers are happier at the higher speed, and in fact consistently ignore the 20-m.p.h. limit.
Carefully Drilled
The committee with the cumbersome title may still be churning out their repertoire somewhere or other, but little_ has been heard from them recently. Their carefully drilled performance has been crowded off the stage by the antics of the hauliers (including British Road Services) and the unions, Melody and harmony are succeeded by a cacophony so confused that one cannot even recognize the tune.
The problem is not so much one of reaching agreement as of deciding afterwards what the agreement means. A reasonable argument from the workers' side that employers are prepared to accept is that, after the speed limit is raised, no man shall be paid less for doing the same work as before, even if he takes less lime
But the amount of time saved cannot accurately be estimated in advance. Tests carried out by The Commercial Motor over selected routes showed that increased speed reduces the time taken between London and Liverpool from 12+ to 9 hours. To get the same money as before, the driver would require a rise of 36 per cent. in his hourly rate. From Liverpool to New B20 castle the time is reduced from lf to 81 hours by increasing the speed. Only 20 per cent. on the hourly rate is needed to make this up. The percentage in respect of the journey between Newcastle and Manchester would be 42.
Any agreement to compensate drivers for their faster times would mean, on this basis, separate schedules of rates for practically every journey. No formula involving a percentage increase in wages is capable of general application, particularly as on short runs and local work there would often be scarcely any extra mileage..
Similar objections apply to the other point on which there is theoretical agreement, namely that the workers should have their fair share of any increase in productivity brought about by raising the speed limit. Even after the higher limit is in operation it will be difficult or impossible to estimate the effect upon the fortunes and efficiency of operators. There can certainly be no question of translating the effect in terms of a general vviges increase.
No Natural Law
What may perturb many of the drivers—although the unions have not lately emphasized the point—is the likelihood of redundancy. Unless any increase in prbductivity is matched by an increase in traffic, fewer vehicles will be needed and fewer drivers. There is no natural law to ensure that hauliers will find more traffic as their capacity to carry it increases. The tendency may be the opposite if, because of higher wages, the uplift in the speed limit does not bring about a reduction in road haulage rates.
Rates may even have to go up if the unions succeed, as they evidently hope, in securing a general rise in wages throughout the industry. Operators who do not run heavy vehicles would be justifiably annoyed at this. Their objection would be not so much to the wage increase as to the indirect method by which it was obtained. As they are subject to statutory machinery, they dislike seeing it by-passed on occasions that appear to suit the unions.
The statutory machinery can he used only to deal with a situation that exists. The Road Haulage 'Wages Council can hardly be asked, or at any rate would certainly not agree, to fix new scales of wages merely in anticipation of an increase in the speed limit.
The wages dilemma underlines what ought to be the correct sequence of events. The commonsense view on the speed limit controversy is that the Minister of Transport, who is as well aware as anybody else of the overwhelming arguments in favour of an uplift, should make the necessary Order and let the consequences look after themselves. Experience alone can show the precise effect of a change in the speed limit.
The Minister's statement in May came as near as any politician can to a promise of the introduction of the appropriate new legislation soon after the House of Commons reassemble, with the further hint that the actual increase would take effect in the spring. His promise was perhaps conditional upon prior agreement among the people concerned. The chances of getting this agreement still do not look too good. Even without it the Minister ought seriously to consider taking the plunge.