OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 20
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 COnneeted with the Mc of commercial motors. Leiters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved. and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
Roads and Railway Control.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[16741 Sir,—Having read with great interest the various articles in your valuable paper on the road transport question, might we suggest that the Commercial Motor Users Association call meetings in all the large towns, inviting owners of motors and other vehicles to be present and patting the case before them and asking for a resolution to be passed against the roads being put under the same control as the railways'? This resolution should then be sent to the members of Parliament for the towns, and their adjacent districts, in which the meetings are held.
Further, could not a massed meeting be arranged in London for the same purpose, thus showing the Government that the country is opposed to the proposed department being formed ? It is only by the combined action of • the traders showing that it is against the good of the country that anything can be done because if only a small number protest, no notice is taken.
The different firms of motor makers might also send a combined resolution to the same effect, pointing out the use of road transport in war and in the expansion of business. We feel sure that if the department is formed, motors will be starved off the road and, then, where will their, business be ?
May we mention that we have no interest in any motor company, so have no axe to ind in that direetion.—Yours faithfully, ROAD USER,
Visible Vapour.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1675] Sir,—In your issue of February 13th I said that, in my opinion, the Committee appointed by the L.G.B. had merely considered motor wagons from the point of view that they were always loaded machines. On reading further into the report they appear to have treated the "Visible Vapour Question" from the point of the emission of smoke, without taking into consideration the emission of exhaust steam under adverse climatic conditions. The latter, however, is the crucial point, as the emission of smoke is merely a question of suitability of coal or coke and care in firing, and is thus in a great measure preventable.
The emission of visible vapour arising from the exhaust steam in frosty or heavy weather is a much more difficult problem, and, as it is not preventable, allowance has to be ma-de for it, and the "Temporary and Accidental" Clause was put into the original Act to cover it.
If I remember rightly, the House of Commons was too busy in 1896 to deal with the Light Locomotives Act, and it was consequently taken in hand by the House of Lords. We were a good deal concerned about the visible vapour question at that time, and on referring to a pamphlet which we published about it find the following:— "In moving that the Bill be read a second time in the House of Lords, Lord Harris. who had charge of it for the Government, said (see Hansard, No. 17, Vol. XXXIX„April 23rd, 1896, page 1,493) :-
These light locomotives were to be so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour was emitted therefrom. That was a change from the Ipresent law as to the heavier class of lecomotive, which provided that they should consume their own smoke ; but, as a matter of fact, they did not consume all the vapour emitted from them. This Bill provided that all kinds of vapour coming from the locomotives were to be invisible. A gentleman using these locomotives on the Continent informed him that in certain states of the temperature it was impossible to prevent a certain amount of vapour coming from the locomotive being visible, and he feared that if there was so much as the puff from a cigarette he would be fined. That was a rather exaggerated view, and if it were shown upon undoubted evidence that it was impossible to manufacture one of the machines so as to keep the vapour emitted invisible, he was Sure the President of the Local Government Board would take the point into consideration, and introduce amending words which would remove this disability.'" In the same pamphlet we mentioned that :—
"In heavy frosty weather one's breath becomes visible vapour, and a team of horses, warm and panting, give oil quite a cloud of 'steam ! or very visible vapour ; therefore any engine cannot be expected to do .better under these circumstances owing to the heat from it coming in contact with the cold, heavy, saturated atmosphere. "As the 'Temporary and Accidental' Clause was put in some time after Lord Harris's speech, and was not mentioned in the earlier stages of the Bill, it is only reasonable to believe that one of its objects was to cover these adverse conditions of temperature, otherwise the Bill, instead of being a serious attempt to legislate in favour of a popular and economical system of haulage, which the trade of the country demands, becomes a hollow and unpractical illusion." The climatic conditions which prevail now are very. similar to those of 1896; therefore if the "Temporary and Accidental" Clause 'was necessary. then, it is just as necessary now, and if the•recommendations of the Committee that it should be repealed are carried out, it is " asking for " a good crop of,vexatious prosecutions .during wintry weather.—Yours faithfully,
J. . MANN.
• Mann's Patent Steam Cart and Wagon Co., Ltd.
The .Red Lamp. The Cyclist Answers.
. The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1676] Sir,—I readily accept the invitation appearing in your issue of the 13th inst. to explain Why cyclists earnestly desire to be rid of the rear lamp. There is nothing " occult " in their reasoning. They are simply believers in the doctrine laid down by that famous cyclist and motorist, Mr. S. F. Edge, that the only safe rule for night travel on the road, is for all vehicles to proceed at such a pace that they can come to a standstill within the distance effectively illuminated by their headlamps. Cyclists do not rant to transfer the onus of avoiding accidents from the overtaker to the overtaken. They desire to observe their own obligations to pedestrians and other slower road users, and to have similar consideration shown to themselves by those who travel at higher speeds. They ask for no rear lamps on other -vehicles, for they are prepared to trust to their own headlights, brakes, and roaderaft when they are overtaking other wheeled traffic ; and they. do 'not desire rear lamps for themselves because the last four years' experience has proved these accessories to be an unmitigated nuisance, a source of constant trouble, expense, and—worst of all—police persecution. A pedestrian on the road is more difficult to discern than a cyclist, because he carries no front light, and is overtaken much more rapidly. Consequently, all motorists must carry headlamps enabling them to see pedestrians in time to avoid an accident, and if they do this it is obvious that the same lamps will reveal a cyclist.—Yours faithfully, THE EDITOR, Cycling.