Opinions and Queries 20 m.p.h. is Enough!
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN his letter published on March 6, C. S. Dunbar I suggests that my article of February 13, dealing with the possible loss in pay to drivers if the speed limit of the heavies is raised, is specious reasoning.
Taking your correspOndent's observations paragraph by paragraph, may I say that in my opinion and, I am sure, in the opinions of most reasonable people, one round trip between London and Glasgow with a 15-tonner, loaded both ways, tipped and re-loaded at each end—is a fair week's Work for any man.
Drivers generally would welcome a shorter working week, if the basic rate of pay is brought up to a reasonable level. As it stands now, they are glad to work 66 hours to earn enough to maintain a decent standard at home and cover their own ever-mounting expenses on the road. There are of course numerous men who, like many employers, are never satisfied, and would work 25 hours a day if possible.
Sunday working was not sought after by the men. In the good old days," as Mr. Dunbar will remember, men were kept at the wheel day and night, week in and week out. Many of the old stagers will tell him that they were lucky to get their boots off once a fortnight. The unions had a stiff fight to get double pay for Sunday, and had to press for Statutory Wages Orders to enforce payment. Even today, there are firms who do not pay double time, but give the men a day off in lieu—when they remember it.
Operators sending out vehicles either on journeys or on trunk service, do so for their own convenience and not to benefit the pocket of the driver. At the same time, drivers who have worked regularly on services involving double pay are fully entitled to take those earnings into account when there is a danger of legislation being introduced which will remove that source of income.
As for recreation, physical, mental or spiritual, if Mr. Dunbar had his way, the drivers would be so exhausted by the time Sunday came round, what with the round trip to Scotland and another two and a half days "round the houses" that they would, I think, need the day in bed.
Although I agree that few, if any, drivers keep their lorries down to a consistent 20 m.p.h. on the open road, must remind Mr. Dunbar that there are many points on the road where he will find the same lorries crawling up-hill at 6-10 m.p.h. He will also find them losing time in cities, towns and villages as the result of traffic conditions—and one cannot make a get-away with a laden eight-wheeler quite as quickly as with a sports car. One could quite as easily argue that no regularmotorist consistently keeps his car down to 30 m.p.h. in London or any other built-up area, but that is no argument for abolishing the 30-m.p.h. limit in towns.
I have a great respect for Mr. Dunbar's writings on most transport matters, but as with so many experts on technical subjects—he seems quite out of touch with the human element. He says that because drivers have been seen to exceed the speed limit they are receiving wages for work which is not being done. Surely the work to be done and paid for is the driving of the lorry from A to B with X tons of merchandise, delivering it safely and picking up a return load, and repeating the operation. How then can the men be paid for work not done? I cannot agree that hanging about to make
up time is a regular practice. That there are men who do it I do not deny, but they form a minority. A man finding himself early, may very well take an extra 10 minutes over his cup of tea or lunch—and why not?
It is not only the drivers of British Road Services who are making all the "fuss," as Mr. Dunbar calls it. The fuss started long before B.R.S. began to operate. I am proud to say that I started it and although there may now be other " official " claimants to the "honour," I organized the militant opposition by many public bodies, and between us we have succeeded' in holding the broposal at bay for nearly seven years. He refers to the interests of the majority of drivers (other than B.R.S.) of vehicles over 3 tons unladen, as though they were bursting to have the speed limit raised. I assure Mr. Dunbar that they are not.
Would Mr. Dunbar care to drive an 8-wheeler from London to Glasgow and back, loaded both ways. Load the vehicle himself at both ends of the journey, make his own deliveries and then feel fresh enough to do a couple of days or even hours local deliveries when he returns? I think not!
Hornchurch, Essex. ERIC CANT.
In Defence of Low-height Buses
pp• EFERR 1NG to the letter from K. W. Swallow in your I ‘issue dated January 23, he pleads for a reduction in the number of low-height buses, I would, however, like to make a few remarks in defence of this type.
He speaks of greater passenger comfort in the normalheight model, but as a passenger who travels daily, mostly in the low-height types, I disagree with him. Although passengers may be slightly more cramped, they can, move along the upper deck with .greater confidence, as they have no fear of being thrown about if the vehicle should lurch.
Mr. Swallow mentions that the higher vehicles are more convenient for conductors, again I dispute this, for I have noticed that they can safely lean against the side of the vehicle,while collecting the fares.
. Another point is that passengers can approach the top of the stairs more easily without having to reach about a yard in front of them for grab rails. I am aware that there is sometimes a stuffy atmosphere during hot weather, but perhaps this could be overcome by the adoption of a sliding part for the roof or better ventilators.
Dairy, Ayrshire. G. A. HAmtn,
A Question of Flash
wurtt regard to the correspondence on the subject " of a light code, may I suggest that one meaning given in a letter from Michael Joyce, in your issue dated February 27, is not generally understood. I refer to the flash when approaching a gap in the traffic wide enough for the passage of only one vehicle.
To my idea, the driver who switches his head lamps on and off in such circumstances, is giving way and not coming through "regardless." I would be interested to hear whether others agree with me in this, at least as far as it concerns the practice in the West of England.
Long Ashton, Som. J. E COLLINS.