OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MR. KEELING PUTS TFIE CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS.
[486411 I recently attended a meeting in Leeds in con . nection with.the merger, of the two National Associations
C,M.U.A. and 'the LR.O.,and along, with many of My co]leagues I feel very much annoyed with the turn
of events. ' 4
It 1.-S a-well-known fact that we in Yorkshire are very anxious that the industry, should be 'United in its efforts to force recognition of the hardships which are being imposed on the road transport industry but, at the same time, we are most desirous that such unity should be one in which operators and subscribers to the associations should have a voice, but to our surprise we, that is the executive of the A.R.O. in Yorkshire, were met with a cut-and-dried policy as to what should and should not take place and what number of representatives we should have on the National Council, etc.
All this has been prepared without the consent of the bulk of our executive, and certainly without a single meeting having been held in Yorkshire. As I have always held that matters of such vital importance should go before the persons who pay, in other words, the members, I naturally voiced my surprise, and in answer to a direct question as to whether or not we-in Yorkshire had to agree that the merger was to be acknowledged in Yorkshire, I was told quite definitely that the merger, so far as London was concerned and, in fact, the provinces, was a "fait accompli." This is an astounding position ; if ever there was dictatorship we have it here! What the operators of A and B vehicles in Yorkshire will say I cannot conceive, but I do think that, even if only as a matter of courtesy, they should have had some say in the future working of the associations.
We have been told that London has spent much time in dealing with the merger question, and whether we like it or not it becomes operative from October 1, this year, and, in fact, that although many of us who have been active for the industry's benefit only know of it as from the one meeting, we are asked to give it our support.
We know of many other things that have been done in London with disastrous results, only to mention the
wages question. It seems that if anything has been done to upset operators, this is it. 538 If associations are to be run on democratic lines, why are not the members considered? Is it another case of the preparation being done in London and then passed on to the provinces? The dissatisfaction at the recent meeting was apparent and many aired their views. If the co-operation that is so much wanted is to be an accomplished fact, then ideas and suggestions should emanate from the local areas and be sent to London for their approval.
If we in Yorkshire are not capable of putting forward our own schemes, then we do not want them forced on to us from London. The Y.S.C.O.A., which I had the honour to represent, owed its success to non-interference from any other source, and if the merger has been created simply to prepare the medicine in London for the provinces to take, then the idea of unity is being defeated, and instead of the large association which we all longed to see as being one representing the whole of the operators, we shall see local associations appearing all over the country.
There is no doubt that a large national association is a desirable thing, but such association should be one the creation of which has the support of the provinces. We should not overlook the fact that once _members lose the power to decide who should or should not represent them, then the tendency to break away is always imminent.
Could anything be more discouraging than to find that we are confronted with a cut-and-dried policy to which the only answer is : well, something had to be done as the merger takes effect as from October 1? No doubt the C.M.U.A. has been able to receive the approval of their members, but they seerii to have been kept well informed of the position, whereas our members know nothing about it.
So far as Yorkshire is concerned, we are told that if we have one area we can have three representatives, and if we have three areas we can have nine. I claim that it is for the areas to decide how many representatives should be allowed. I have no hesitation in airing my complaint, so do not put it under a nom de plume.
Leeds, 4. J. KEELING.
THE WEIGHING OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
[4865] In a recent prosecution in respect of an alleged overloading of a goods vehicle, it was contended, on behalf of the defendant, that inaccurate weights were recorded, by reason of the fact that when weighed the vehicle was not standing on level ground. This defence was successful in the Magistrates' Court, but when taken to appeal it was held in the King's Bench Divisional Court that the law contains no stipulations as to the weighing of a vehicle being required to be on level ground.
Representations were accordingly made to the Ministry of Transport by the Commercial Motor Users Association, directing attention to this decision, and expressing the view that there can be no doubt that if a vehicle were weighed on very sloping ground the weights recorded would be materially inaccurate, and urging, therefore, that the law be suitably amended so as to require that when vehicles are weighed by the authorities the vehicles must be standing on level ground.
It is understood that such an amendment would be favourably considered if evidence can be produced of cases where proceedings are taken in respect of weights which, if tOsted on a level road, would not be in excess of those permitted by the Regulations.
Accordingly, in the event of a goods vehicle being
weighed by a Weights and Measures Inspector under conditions as a result of which it is considered that inaccurate weights are recorded, either by reason of the ground upon which the vehicle is then standing not being level ground, or for any other reason, it is suggested that the vehicle be taken at once to the nearest weighbridge for a check weighing. If, as a result, a variation in the recorded weights be found to exist, full particulars should at once be sent to Mr. F. G. Bristow, C.B.X., the General Secretary, Commercial Motor Users Association, 50, Pali Mali, London, S.W.1.
Commercial motor users will appreciate that it is only by the production of actual evidence that it is possible to prieve the need for any alteration in the existing law as regards weighing of vehicles, and their co-operation in this matter is, therefore, of importance if any necessary amendment to the law is to be secured.
F. G. Bersrow, General Secretary, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR USERS ASSOCIATION_ London, S.W.1.
A CRITICISM OF A "THIS WEEK'S PROBLEM."
[4866] Regarding the hire of a 2i-ton vehicle, mentioned in "This Week's Problem" dated August 14, whilst I agree in the main with your procedure in costing, I am not in agreement that excess mileage should be charged at an increased rate, and I give my reasons below.
The owner of the vehicle agrees to hire out his vehicle at 210 pet week, and this figure is arrived at on a basis of 200 miles per week.
The position is that should the hirer run only irso miles, he must Still pay 210 to the owner of the vehicle.
If the hirer runs 400 miles per week, the standing charges have not increased. You cannot increase your running costs, i.e., 3d. per mile, for in setting this figure you have adequately covered this item of expenditure.
Therefore, excess mileage is in favour of the owner and not the hirer, and instead of being increased should be definitely decreased.
From my own experience of hiring vehicles • from various transport contractors during very busy periods of business, be rate has always been: decreased when mileage in excess of the agreed mileage has been done, and rightly so.
H. W. W. BAKER, A.M.I.A.E., Chief Transport Engineer,
Dagenham. ADVANCE LAUNDRIES, LTD.
[We think that Mr. Baker has misinterpreted the solution of " This. Weeles.ProWeel" dated August 14. In. that solution it is stated that " the actual cost of operating the vehicle would he 3d. per milerunning cost and 2410s.
• per week standing charges . . ." Surely Mr. Baker would not have a haulage contractor give his services at cost price, for that, in effect, is what he stiggests. The suggestion. that the operator should charge 4d, per mile merely provides for 1d. per mile profit on occasional excess mileages. It would be interesting if haulage contractors would read this footnote and the " This Week's Problem" in question, and communicate their views.— ED . ] A CONTRACT WHICH DEPENDS UPON OVERLOADING.
[4867] I am writing to ask you if you could give me the running costs of a 3-ton chassis to carry 6 tons, as I have a contract offered to me, and the price is 9s. 2d.
per ton, the run being approximately 24 miles for the return trip. I shall have to buy, a new machine and will be unable to do other work with it, I am wondering whether it is going to be a paying proposition. From what I am given to understand, the mileage total for
the year will be about 25,000. R.R. Leeds, 9
[We are not prepared to give running casts for a vehicle loaded to twice its proper capacity, and we strongly advise you not to consider loading 6 tons on to a 3-tonner. It is almost hound to cause trouble, quite possibly with the police. We are always willing to give information where a vehicle is used in a reasonable manner.—En.] ESTIMATING COSTS FOR AN ARTICULATED VEHICLE.
14868] I am anticipating purchasing an articulated vehicle which will be capable of carrying 8. tons, and I propose using as my tractive unit a 3-ton short-wheelbase lorry: The articulated trailer has only one pair of wheels.
From your table of operating costs for articulated vehicles, Table VIII, I am not certain whether the 3, 6 539 and 8 tons given under running costs (pence per mile) refer to the carrying capacity of the complete machine or only the capacity of the tractive unit.
At present I have based my running costs for this machine on a 4-ton tractive unit, as detailed in Table I. ' Personally I have always understood that the object of an articulated vehicle is that one can obtain a largecapacity lorry with the same running costs as the light typeE.O.H. Chesterfield.
[The figures for a 6-tanner quoted in Table VIII are those which you should use in estimating the operating costs and charges for your articulated six-wheeler. It is a common fallacy that by adding a trailer and two wheels to a lorry it can be made to carry double the load without increasing the operating cost. Nothing is farther from the truth.—S.T.R.] '
WHEN VEHICLES ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX.
[4869] It has been reported that a clause was included in the Finance Act, 1936, exempting from licence duty vehicles which travel on the public roads only to pass from land in occupation by the owner to other land in his occupation, provided that they do not cover on the roads more than six miles per week. We shall be obliged if you will confirm the accuracy or otherwise of this report. S. C. LONGHURST,
Epsom. FOR E. LONGHURST AND SONS, LTD.
The Finance Act, 1936, makes the following provision:— (1) If an applicant for a licence under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, in respect of any mechanically propelled vehicle satisfies the licensing authority that the vehicle is intended to be used on roads repairable at the public expense—(a) only in passing from land iif his occupation to other land in his occupation; and (to) for distances not exceeding in the aggregate six miles in any calendar week; then, if authorized so to do by the Minister of Transport with the consent of the Treasury, the licensing authority may exempt the vehicle from the duty payable under the said section. (2) If a mechanically propelled vehicle exempted under this section from the payment of duty is used on roads repairable at the public expense otherwise than for the purpose and to the extent specified in the last foregoing subsection, the vehicle shall for the purposes of Section 13 of the Roads Act, 1920, be deemed to have been a vehicle for which a licence under the Finance Act, 1920, was not in force. —En.]