Answers to Queries.
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Insurance Query.
[1,830] " SECRETARY " writes :---" I should he much obliged if you could inform me of a reliable office for insuring motor vehicles against fire, accident, etc. Your early reply would be much appreciated."
ANSWER.—You might address the Car and General Insurance Corporation, Ltd., whose head office is at 1, Queen Victoria Street, E.C. (next door to the Mansion House), and you might also address the Glasgow Assurance Corporation, Ltd., whose London .office is at 10, Queen Street, E.C.
-War Office and Foreign Purchases.
[1,831] "W." writes : —"I wonder if you will be good .enough to let me know where I can obtain full information with reference to the Saurer commercial .chassis, as supplied to the A.S.C. Mechanical TransTort Section. Your kindness in this matter will be .very much appreciated."
ANswErt.—The Saurer commercial chassis are made by Messrs. Saurei, of Arbon, Switzerland. As a _matter of fact, the wagon built by J. and E. Hall, .Ltd., of Dartford, is practically an improved Satire'', that company building in England by arrangement with Messrs. Saurer. The reason that the War Office .purchased a Saurer lorry was because of its success in Continental military trials. It was purchased for information, and shipped from Rotterdam to Aberdeen, and driven from Aberdeen to Aldershot last summer.
Concerning Petrol Lorries and Steam Tractors.
[1,832] "T." writes :—" I thought about speculating in a petrol or steam lorry for hauling purposes, etc., and should like to have a little of your advice before purchasing. There is plenty of hauling to be done here ; all is done by horses at present, mostly for hay -dealers, road repairers, contractors, coal merchants, .millers, furniture removers etc. I could manage a petrol motor lorry myself, and thought a living could. be got here if anyone had a lorry of about 3-ton • capacity, partly for hauling and also convertible for passengers ; but I think a small 5-ton tractor with trucks would be most suitable for heavy hauling. I have a brother who owns a heavy traction engine, who wishes to go into partnership, but I am not quite sure what to decide, although I should have to if it were a steamer, as I have not had any experience with them. T am afraid thatrubber-tired wheels would be too expensive to maintain for my purpose.
"Please let me know your opinion, and which you think most suitable and most economical—steam or petrol, or oil tractor. Also, whether you would think best to invest in a new 3-tonner 2225 chassis as advertized by Industrial Vehicles, Ltd., or a wellknown secondhand vehicle of about the same value.
"Is there a tractor on the market capable of working a 44ft. threshing machine? If so, what make of tractor and thresher ? Of course, it would be best to have a governor fitted."
ANSWER.—Much of the information for which you ask is contained in the issue of this journal dated the loth February last, a copy of which has been posted direct. A five-ton steam tractor is only allowed to haul one truck under the Motor Car Acts. We are inclined to think that you would do best to purchase -a steam tractor on the three-years system. It is impossible to give an opinion on any petrol vehicle advertised in this journal without an inspection and trial. Rubber tires on a three-ton lorry, on country roads, would probably cost lid. per mile run they, of course, allow higher legal speeds-12 miles an hour. quick-speed goods work, and passenger work with a suitable body, can, of course, be undertaken with such a vehicle, but a two-ton or three-ton petrol lorry does not always possess the necessary platform area to embrace furniture-removal work. We presume that the price of £225, which is mentioned, does not include tires, and a new set of tires for such a lorry, of ample section, would cost more than another £100. You can get a governed tractor from any of the recognized makers, and any such tractor will efficiently drive a 4 ft. threshing machine.
Negligent Obstruction.
[1,833] ' OWNER-DRIVER" writes I should be ex tremely obliged if you would advise me upon the fol lowing occurrence : I am at present driving a — wagon, and on Monday last was summoned for 'negligently interrupting and preventing the free passage of a certain other motorcar by failing to keep upon the left-hand side of the highway.' I had a trailer behind me at the time, and this makes it very awkward to observe what traffic is coming towards the rear, and also renders it impossible to hear a motor horn or other signal. As a rule, I invariably keep to the left-hand side, but at this particular spot the road narrows and is rather soft on the near side, and I was compelled to keep to the centre of the road.
"If I am convicted, shall I have conviction endorsed upon the back of my driving licence ? I take
it I was not committing an offence against the Motor Car Acts, and, therefore, I should be in the same position as a driver of a horse and van, presuming he was convicted for the same offence. As I have to appear on next, I should be very grateful to receive your advice upon this matter, and I also think this case concerns a great many other users of steam wagons for removal purposes, who must suffer the same inconvenience as myself in being unable to hear other traffic overtaking them."
ANSWER (after telegraphic advice as to procedure).
—We confirm our telegram, and we hope it reached you first thing in the morning. We think you cannot have quoted the whole of the wording of Lhe sum mons? Presuming it to have been issued under the Highways Act of 1835, we consider that your, best course, as advised by telegram, is to plead "Not guilty," to explain the whole circumstances to the magistrates, and to point out that, though you may have been unwittingly the cause of some obstruction, it was not wilful or negligent obstruction. Also, under the Highways Act, a driver of any vehicle is entitled to proceed along the crown of the road until the road is called from him by some overtaking driver ; then, the driver in front must be allowed reasonable time to draw to the near side. Every case, of course, must be decided on its merits, and on the alleged facts. Your licence should not be endorsed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.—" We thank you for your telegram which we are glad to say reached us Monday
morning,. and we further thank you for your letter of to-day. Re summons: our driver was not successful in getting a dismissal, hut, considering the prosecutor was a magistrate, we think the fine imposed, i.e.. V. and costs es,, was fairly lenient. We pleaded Not guilty,' as you advised, and it wo admitted in court that. no wilful obstruction ' was proved, but that 'negligent obstruct-ion' was.
"Re endorsement of licence : we put it to the magistrate's clerk that, as the offence was against the Highways Act of 1835, which was in force long before any Motor Car Acts were made, we were not committing an offence against these particular acts, and. such being the case. endorsement of licence was not required, with which view the magistrates concurred."