AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OPINIONS and QUERIES Another Fighting Contribution from Mr. Brooks.

28th July 1933, Page 57
28th July 1933
Page 57
Page 58
Page 57, 28th July 1933 — OPINIONS and QUERIES Another Fighting Contribution from Mr. Brooks.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4122] Sir,—I was pleased to see acknowledgment of my letter, in the remarks of Mr. Street and Mr. Knight, which appeared in your issue dated June 30.

Their letters, however, appear to me to carry a pessimistic tone, and they are not attracted by my suggestion to flood the M.P.9 with postcards of protest to make them realize the weight of our determined opinion. If either Mr. Street or Mr. Knight has any alternative suggestion to make which will bring about the desired result let him make it immediately. Both also seem reconciled to the final passing of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, and evidently consider it not worth while to put in motion any effort which might prevent it from going through. They also seem to have made up their minds to pay the increased taxes which come into force next year, and are seemingly content to pay 8d. per gallon to the Government on the quantity of petrol they use per week, but for which tax there is not the slightest justification. It would be different if petrol could be commercially produced in this country and the tax put on to bring imported petrol up to the price of the home-produced spirit.

My aim is to get transport-vehicle operators to demand a reduction of the tax on light vehicles and pneumatic-tyred motors, to stipulate that there shall be no increase in tax on heavy vehicles, to obtain the use of oil fuel for Diesel engines free of tax, to demand the cancelling of, or a substantial reduction in, the petrol tax, the erasion of the red tape and bureaucratic regulations contained in the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, and the recognition of the road transport industry as one of the most important in the country, together with the cessation of the continued persecu tion levelled against it in all forms. J. C. BROOKS. Manchester 17.

The Attempt to Crush Road Transport.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4123] Sir,—The attitude adopted by the Government towards the road transport industry is, to say the least, pernicious and, judged by the standards upon which have been founded British supremacy in commerce, disastrous to age-long traditions.

The railways, of which we should justly be proud in many respects, have contributed to their present plight by consistent failure to convert tremendous resources into means for combating competition. It is often asserted that, owing to the various restrictions, the controllers of the railways have been prevented from taking the necessary steps to fight the challenge of road transport. This no doubt is true, but also there are numerous aspects of railway methods which offer adequate reason for my statement that. the onus for their present situation lies principally upon them

selves. The numerous lengthy delays in delivery, the careless manner of handling, necessitating expensive packing to ensure safety of goods, and the intolerant inattention of Many railway workers, are instances of inefficient administration.

By remedying these faults the railways would greatly assist themselves in repelling the road-transport menace, the growth of which has been largely wrought by studying and catering for the requirements of its customers.

41 The facilities provided by the railways for the comfort and convenience of the long-distance traveller are indisputably preferential to anything that motor rraclies can offer, but to offset this inferiority the deights of motoring, combined with the benefits derived om visits to little-known venues, have provided Motor-coach concerns with the opportunity of catering for a section of the populace hitherto debarred from extensive travel.

In addition, how frequently one is assailed by a nauseating stench of accumulated dirt and tobacco fumes upon entering railway carriages, whereas motor coaches are regularly cleansed and often sprayed with disinfectant at the termination of each journey.

An interesting point in this controversy Is the persistency in overlooking the fact that this is an evolution of commercial history. The founders of the railways experienced no qualms in crushing existing transport industries, namely, the stage-coach and canals, the sponsors of which were compelled to forfeit their )ivelihood in the cause of commercial advancement. Now, however, when confronted with the problem of rehabilitation, the railway leaders are enlisting the aid of the Government to replenish their depleted coffers.

Surely, allowing the necessity of official intervention, a favourable restoration of traffic to the railways could be secured without almost exterminating an enterprise of sufficient magnitude to warrant consider

ate treatment. L. WRIGHT. Bromley.'

An Income-tax Injustice.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4124] Sir,—I was very pleased indeed tG read your leading article entitled " An Income Tax Injustice," contained in your issue dated July 14, and I sincerely hope that this had the attention of some of our influential gentlemen at Somerset House. I also hope that a large number of our road haulier friends found time to study this too and will write to their respective Members of Parliament at once, or they will find themselves in the position which I did; my business shut down by the Traffic Commissioners, over 20 men rendered idle, vehicles standing in the garage with the doors closed, and, this is the greatest injustice of , all, over E250 income tax to pay.

Let this actual experience of mine be a warning to your readers, and I would strongly advise everyone connected with the industry to study the columns of The Commercial Motor very closely in these days when The Road and Rail Traffic Bill threatens to do for hauliers what The Road Traffic Act did for us bus operators. A. 5. SPRINGETT. Rayleigh.

The Unfair Limiting of Tractor-trailer.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4125] Sir,—As constant readers of The Commercial Motor we have read with great interest the letter written by Mr. G. S. Baird, published in your issue dated July 14, and would like to endorse all he says on tile Matter of tractor-trailer speed.

Unfortunately, we are in the same boat, and with your permission would like to place on record our sentiments on the matter.

We are now running eight vehicles of this class, and on two occasions—one quite recently—the drivers have been stopped, charged and fined for exceeding the utterly ridiculous speed of 16 m.p.h., which is not only unfair, but absurd.

The type of lorry is the Fordson, equipped with six 32-in. by 6-in. tyres. The attachment—which is manufactured solely by ourselves—has two 36-in. by 8-in. tyres on the trailing axle, the entire weight being only 2 tons 16 cwt., with a speed limited to 16 m.p.h.

We have, moreover, another type ofglorry which weighs 4 tons 91 cwt., and it is capable of carrying a load of 6 tons.

The heavier vehicle hauls a trailer weighing 2 tons 3 cwt., and it again carries a load of 5 tons—a total of 11 tons.

The amazing thing to us is that this weight of between 17 and 18 tons can be transported at the same speed as the smaller lorry.

We do hope, Mr. Editor, that you will use your influence with the powers that be in pointing out this

flagrant anomaly. T. BATES AND SONS. Billingborough.

A Delayed Claim for Damage During a Removal The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4126] Sir,—Having been a regular reader of your valuable paper for the past six years, and appreciating particularly the articles by " S.T.R."—which, incidentally, have been responsible for giving me an idea as to the economics of motor vehicle operation—I venture to ask you a question concerning a furniture removal I undertook some time ago. I noted that not long ago " S.T.R." was writing about the many pitfalls connected with such work, and I thought that this case Might be interesting, whilst your advice would help me to come to a decision withl'regard to my liability in the matter.

After preliminaries had been settled, I undertook to remove from Norwich to Bath the personal effects of a clergyman, which work necessitated the use of a 2-ton van which I own. An insurance was effected with the Norwich Union for a premium of 10s. (this company already had the insurance business for the goods in question) to cover the goods against fire, theft, damage, etc.

Now, I had already carried out furniture removals for three clergymen from this di§trict. and everything in the shape of books and other matters that one

• would expect gentlemen in this profession to have was packed by them and the') jobs were evidently carried out to their satisfaction, as I have unsolicited testimonials from two oft-them, and the other, I knowwas very pleased with the way the work was done. Having regard to my experiences with these removals, and on receipt of a letter to the effect that • all would be ready for the removal, I despatched a van with two 'man to Norwich and wrote an advice letter to the minister, askiag that if any assistance was thought necessary he would .secure, it and I would pay,

540 but, unfortunately for me, this minister proved of a very exacting nature, and it was found that not a book had been taken off the shelves or anything packed, a situation for which my men were totally unprepared.

The furniture, etc., was packed into the van, however, and after three days' absence my men arrived back here (Midsomer Norton) with the load, where it had to be stored by me for three weeks. When the furniture was unloaded, the only visible damage was a scratch on one side of a wardrobe, which was done in getting it out of an extremely difficult window at Norwich, whilst several glasses in pictures were broken. These glasses were replaced and the pictures were returned. Subsequently the furniture was taken to its destination at Bath, the minister and his wife being present, and nothing was then said about any damage, but now I have received from the Norwich Union a demand for £3 10s. for damage said to have been sustained by the furniture and for which the minister had lodged a claim. REMOVAL.

[The probability is that the insurance company would be entitled to recover from you the amount which they have paid to the minister if it could prove that damage to that amount was done to the goods owing to the negligence of your men in the course of the removal. As however, we understand that the goods were handed over to the owner months before the claim, it appears to us quite unreasonable that a claim should now be made without your having been given an opportunity of examining the alleged damage, and this fact would probably make it difficult for the company to prove its claim if it should take proceedings against you in the county court. We consider it unlikely that the company will take any action,, but we suggest that you should reply on the following lines :—" In reply to your letter of June 27, I cannot agree with your statement that the goods were not properly packed or that care was not taken to prevent damage in transit. I would remind you that the goods were collected in Norwich and were brought to my premises, where they were stored for three weeks, after which they were delivered at Bath in the presence of the owner and his wife. No suggestion was made by either of them at the time that any of the goods was damaged: If they had wished to make any claim in respect of the goods they should have done so at the time, so as to give me

an opportunity of inspecting the alleged damage. In these circumstances it does not appear to me that you are now justified in making a claim upon me."—ED.] Holidays for Goods Transport Employees.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[4127] Sir,—We shall be glad to know the customary practice in regard to the granting of holidays in the transport industry for tile following grades :—(1) Trunk drivers paid by the journey. (2) Distribution drivers paid by the week. (3) Maintenance staff paid by the week.

When replying perhaps you will be good enough to mention the customary period which you give for holidays in respect of the above. We presume, of course, that in the event of holidays being given the full wages are paid.

We must apologize for writing the above, but we have not been in the industry very long and we wish to make a rule in regard to this important point.

CARRIERS.

[The general rule concerning holidays for drivers and repairshop staff in a transport organization is as follows :—A. week's holiday is given, with pay, provided that the employee has been in continuous service for one year and has not been absent from his employment for more than seven days in one year without reasonable cause or previous nbtification. The holidays are to be taken between May 1 and October 31, unless otherwise agreed. The year to be calculated as between May 1 and April 30. The following holidays are paid for:—Christmas Day, Good Friday, the four Bank Holidays and any other nationally proclaimed holiday. If a man be called upon to work on those days, other than stable or garage duties, he shall receive an additional day's pay. It is understood that the holidays Will not be paid for should a man absent himself on the following day without previous consent, unless he be unwell.—S.T.R.]

Tags

Organisations: Norwich Union
People: G. S. Baird, Knight
Locations: Manchester, Bath, Norwich

comments powered by Disqus