AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Restrictive Practice

2nd March 1951, Page 54
2nd March 1951
Page 54
Page 59
Page 54, 2nd March 1951 — Restrictive Practice
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?

Political Commentary By JAN US Supporters of the Higher Speed Limit for Heavy Vehicles Should Not Be Discouraged, although Some M.P.s are Vulnerable to Persuasion by •

So-called Workers' Representatives

ANOTHER attempt to get the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles raised from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h.

has been quietly smothered From what was known of the Minister of Transport's views on the subject, it was generally thought that the Government would accept the proposal sponsored by Mr. G. A. N. Hirst, M.P. for Shipley, that the necessary change in legislation should be made. Unfortunately, Parliamentary time was not available on the day fixed for the discussion, and the supporters of the proposal must now seek another opportunity of putting it forward.

If fortune had been kinder to him, Mr. Hirst was no doubt armed with strong and well-tried arguments. Organizations and individuals have flogged those arguments for several years. The higher limit, they have pointed out, would save time and, consequently, money. One vehicle would be able to do up to half as much work again, and the cost to the transport user would be correspondingly reduced.

Vehicle manufacturers have had to design vehicles to carry as heavy a load as possible, provided that the unladen weight does not exceed 3 tons. This compulsion to keep down to an arbitrary weight has not been welcomed Improvements in braking performance have helped to make the 20-m.p.h. limit an anachronism. Heavy vehicles with a cruising speed of 50 m.p.h. are being exported whilst the manufacturers have to produce an entirely different range for the home market.

No Objection

To some people, any suggestion that vehicles be allowed to travel faster must be wrong. The roadsafety issue, so far as it concerns the heavy goods vehicle, was dealt with by the Committee on Road Safety appointed by the Minister of Transport and consisting of representatives of Government departments, the police and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The view of the Committee, as expressed in its report in 1947, is unmistakable. "Having regard to improvements in braking equipment," the report stated, "we see no objection on grounds of road safety to an increase of the speed limit of 20 m.p.k at present applicable to heavy goods vehicles."

Other experts have gone further in maintaining that strict adherence to the 20-m.p.h. and the 30-m.p.h. limits, because it increases the number of occasions when overtaking becomes necessary, is more likely to lead to accidents than the proposed increase in speed. Many drivers of heavy goods vehicles, it is alleged, pay little regard to the speed limit. Their vehicles cruise more comfortably at the higher speed. Boredom, frustration and carelessness result from travelling long distances at the slower pace. Each gradient, however small, calls fo, a change of gear, which means greater petrol consumption, higher maintenance costs and an additional strain on the driver.

It has been known for a long time that the Minister et 6 would not be opposed to the increase in the speed limit. He has had the matter brought to his attention several times, in Parliament and out of it. Mr. Hirst's motion was widely regarded as the formal framework within which Mr. Barnes would be able to signify his approval publicly and secure the support of Parliament to the necessary Statutory Order.

The result of the debate, however, if it had taken place, was not entirely a foregone conclusion. When it was first set down, the proposal attracted a phalanx of over 200 supporters among M.P.s of all parties. As the date of the debate drew near, it was observed that the phalanx tended to crumble at the edges. One or two Members withdrew their support and others became at least lukewarm.

The most likely explanation of the defection is that the Members concerned were approached by the opponents of the speed-limit increase. Some objections may have been lodged by the diehards who oppose on principle any suggestion that vehicles be allowed to go faster Probably the main attack came from one or more of the organizations representing drivers.

Legal Sanction

The 20-m.p.h. limit comes close to being what is usually described as a restrictive practice_ It provides heavy goods vehicle drivers with legal sanction for logging a journey at an average of no more than 16 m.p.h An increase in the limit would entail an increase in the average. The journey would take much less time, with the result that either fewer drivers would be required or the weekly wage packets would suffer.

Realizing that the drivers were deeply concerned, the Minister at an early stage referred the matter to the Road Haulage Central Wages Board. At first things seemed to be going very well. The Transport and General Workers' Union representatives asked for one or two safeguards. They wanted vehicles registered before April, 1938, to be excluded from the proposed new Order; and suggested setting up joint machinery to discuss any alterations in running-schedules. When the employers agreed, there seemed no further obstacle. The Minister sent details of the proposals to a number of organizations, and it looked to be all over bar the shouting.

The shouting, as it happened, came mostly from the opposition. Away from the Wages Board, the views of the unions seemed to change. A vigorous publicity campaign evidently paid good dividends to the instigators. The hopes of an early change in the law faded., The Minister, his determination obviously shaken, passed the matter back to the Wages Board (or Wages Council as it had by then become). Two years later, the debate is still continuing.

Undoubtedly, the tactics that have so far been remarkably successful were again used by the opponents of the increase to split the ranks of Mr Hirst's supporters. Some of the drivers who would be chiefly ffected by the change do not approve. They raise the ■ Id Luddite cry of redundancy, and at the same time eck to prove, in the teeth of the Minister's own comlittee, that the 30-m.p.h. limit which has always been ccepted for vehicles carrying passengers would be [nsafe if extended to vehicles carrying goods. There re evidently some M.P.s particularly vulnerable to gitation from organizations claiming to represent a onsiderable number of workers.

Other organizations apparently Count for less. Vehicle aanufacturers, traders, farmers, C-licence holders, Lauliers and the Road Haulage Executive would all renefit from the higher limit, and the general public would welcome any step to increase efficiency and lower costs. Until recently, the opposition has been successful in its manteuvre to keep the battle a more or less private one between the hauliers and the unions. The hauliers have been hampered by their unwillingness to take too strong a line on the Wages Council. They must also know that the larger proportion of heavy vehicles is engaged on long-distance work, so that the British. Transport Commission would reap the principal benefit from the increase, and the hauliers the blame.

Now that at last the issue has become more general, the supporters of the 30-m.p.h. limit are not likely to be discouraged by one setback.


comments powered by Disqus