'50 m.p.h. law is sole wal to cut defects haulier
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ASTAFFORDSHIRE haulier, Mr. S. Cope, managing director of S. Cope (Transport) Ltd., of Hartshill, Stoke-onTrent, told a public inquiry at Birmingham on Monday that the only way to prevent defects developing during short periods of time was to bring in legislation that would prevent heavy goods vehicles being capable of speeds greater than 50 m.p.h.
Mr. Cope appeared before the West Midland LA, Mr. J. Else, for consideration of the revocation, curtailment or suspension of his firm's A licences because of lack of maintenance. In the summer Mr. Cope wrote to Mr, Stephen Swingler, joint Parliamentary Secretary. to the Ministry of Transport, alleging victimization by Ministry vehicle examiners, but he made no such complaint at the enquiry.
The LA suspended one vehicle for one month. He said Cope had I 7 vehicles, 15 on A and one each on B and C licences. Between February 1965 and April 1966, five immediate prohibitions, which for technical reasons he would treat as four, and nine delayed (treated as eight) had been issued on the firm's vehicles. There had also been five prosecutions. As a result of this record, a fleet inspection took place in May. Twelve vehicles were seen and on these two immediate and three delayed prohibitions were issued. Since then two further immediate GV9s had been issued.
The LA said Mr. Cope was jealous of his firm's reputation and for that reason felt the hand of man at large was against him. He had mentioned the people responsible for the plight of hauliers in connection with maintenance as ranging from the Ministry of Transport and the vehicle manufacturers to a chief mechanic who was slovenly and a "bodger".
"1 have come to the conclusion that he had protested too loudly and too much about others when in the ultimate the r ponsibility for the condition and maint4 ance of vehicles is that of the licer holder," said Mr. Else. He added that 1 penalty might have been more vigorous h he not been satisfied Mr. Cope had now to grips with the situation by putting ir pit in his opinion an essential feature maintenance when there was no ramp hoist—and the fact that he had put on overalls to see the condition of the vehic for himself.
Mr. R. W. Bent, area vehicle examin described an incident in March during whi Mr. Cope. alleged that another vehi examiner Mr. Culshaw trespassed on priv; property, exceeded his duty, parked his c dangerously in the company's yard and h been on the booze". The following ch Mr. Cope withdrew the allegations a apologized.
Giving evidence, Mr. Cope declared tf he kept his fleet which consisted of AEI and one Dodge, in good mechanical con lion. He blamed the Ministry of Transpc the vehicle manufacturers, maniac drisa and bad roads, for hauliers' maintenar difficulties. Many of the items on the G V mentioned were trivial and he disagreed w some of them.
Mr. G. C. Tinsdill, for Cope, subrnitt that it had been established that his clic had not been wilful and that his record w not as bad as it looked on paper.
At the same sitting, two C-licence Opel tors had their licences revoked. They wt Mr. R. Taylor of Hereford (three vehicle and Mr. S. E. Tilsley of Bridgnorth (t) vehicles). Mr. D. Gibbons of West Bromwi whose short-term B licence for one vehil had expired, had his full-term applicati refused. None of these operators attend court.