AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Eyes right

2nd May 1975, Page 46
2nd May 1975
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 46, 2nd May 1975 — Eyes right
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?

by Les Oldridge, TEng(CEI),

MIMI, AMIRTE A HIGHER standard of physical fitness than that of the ordinary licence holder is demanded for the heavy goods vehicle driver; he has to undergo a medical examination, including an eyesight test, and produce a medical certificate showing that he is fit enough to drive lorries with safety.

In the case of the ordinary driving licence one answers certain questions concerning physical fitness on the application form and the licence is granted. It is an offence to give false answers to these questions, but even so this is nothing compared with undergoing a searching medical examination as the applicant for an hgv driver's licence has to do.

The eyesight requirements for the ordinary driving licence is an ability to read in good daylight (with the aid of glasses if worn) the registration mark on a motor car at a distance of 751t where the letters and figures are 31in high or at 67ft where they are 31in high. A special concession is made for the applicant for a licence to drive mowing machines or pedestrian-controlled vehicles, the distance being reduced to 45ft and 40ft respectively.

Unaware

Section 91 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 makes it an offence for a person to drive al motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such that he could not pass this test. It does not matter whether this is because of a defect in his eyesight which cannot be corrected or one which is not sufficiently corrected at the time of the offence. This offence may be committed without the offender being aware of it where the deterioration in a person's vision is so slow that he does not realise it has occurred.

Where a police officer has reason to believe •that a person driving a motor vehicle may be guilty of the offence of driving with defective vision he may require the driver to submit to a test to see whether, using no other means of correction than he used at the time he was driving, he can comply with the requirements. The test requires the driver to read a number plate at the distances outlined above in good daylight.

When the offence occurs at night the policeman is, quite obviously, in some difficulty as he is unable to conduct the test. It would seem sensible for the lowing day at a mutually agreeable time and place and although there is no legal authority for the policeman to require this to be done I can see no alternative way in which the law can be enforced in these circumstances.

There is a maximum penalty of three month's imprisonment or a £100 fine for driving with uncorrected eyesight and a £100 fine for refusing to submit to an eyesight test. In addition in each case the offender's driving licence will be endorsed and may be suspended.

Eyesight test

In the case of the hgv drivers the eyesight test is incorporated in the medical examination. Question 7 of the Medical Certificate which has to be answered by the doctor carrying out the examination reads:

(a) Acuity of vision (with glasses if worn) by Snellens test.

(b) Were the readings taken with the applicant's own glasses?

(c) Is the applicant's field of vision by hand test satisfactory?

(d) Do you consider the applicant's vision is likely to cause the driving by him of a heavy goods vehicle to be a source of danger to the public?

The last question need only be answered if the man's eyesight falls below a certain standard or if the field of vision is unsatisfactory. The doctor has to certify if in his opinion the applicant is fit or not fit to drive an hgv. Presumably it is the LA who finally decides whether or not a licence is granted, but one would think he is bound to be guided by the doctor as far as the applicant's physical condition is concerned. NOW that the 1975 round of coach rallies is almost over it is perhaps time that we looked at the future of these events. In the past two issues of CM we have carried reports on the two main British rallies at Blackpool and Brighton, and the most important European event, held this year at Monte Carlo.

I attended the rallies at Brighton and Monte Carlo and have heard several accounts of the proceedings at Blackpool. All the rallies this year had slightly better entries than might have been expected when business for many coach operators is looking none too bright, but even so they are a shadow of their former selves. At Brighton, for instance, people were recalling early events in the rally's 21-year life that attracted well over 100 vehicles. This year there were under 80, and many of those entered at a very late stage. At Blackpool the entry was only about 40 and at Monte Carlo there were exactly half the vehicles that competed in the last Semaine du Car two years ago.

Rationalising rallies

For some time there has been talk of rationalising the rally scene in the UK. It would surely benefit both Blackpool and Brighton to have rallies more widely spread in time. Some think that the obvious answer would be to have a rally in Blackpool one year and one in Brighton the next and so on. This, of course, would require some degree of cooperation between the two organising bodies involved in the rallies—something which does not seem to happen at present.

At the same time it is perhaps time to look at the way the events themselves are organised. While not being wholly in favour of the procedures used for the Semaine du Car there is do doubt that they represent a considerably higher level of competence and precision in both judging and testing. At the same time, of course, the event lasts a week and the entry fee can be £200, compared with the E10 for Brighton.

It •is significant perhaps that the international event does not have one overall award, in the way that we have a National coach of the year or British coach of the year. The organising committee in Paris evidently believes, and in my view rightly, that it is unwise to have coaches competing in different categories—technical tests, driving, bodywork, safety, and route planning— and lump all these together in one award. This is the tendency in Britain with the inevitable result—given that the bodywork section is regarded as the most important—that the operator who spends most on lavish equipment walks away with the top prize.

It is significant that among UK coach operators who have got into financial difficulties are several who failed to get an adequate return on lavish " executive" coaches.

The fact that there is one prize at home gives the two events inflated importance in the eyes of both operators and manufacturers. The bodybuilder who wins the top prize at either Blackpool or Brighton can use the publicity he derives from that in selling vehicles. The maker who comes second shares none of the gloss even though his vehicle may be much more typical and likely to be bought by 99 per cent of British operators. That is not say that "super executive" coaches should not be entered; just that they should be in a class of their own.

In the international week there are many more prizes —the results folder is half an inch thick—which ensures a fairer spread of awards among different vehicles. At this year's competition, for example, Daimler-Benz won the most important safety prize while Van Hool captured the bodywork award. Many of the other manufacturers whose vehicles were entered picked up kudos in other categories.

One of the particularly impressive features of the Continental event—and one which the British organisers would do well to copy—is the emphasis on technical tests. Using apparatus and researchers borrowed from the French equivalent of MIRA the rally can lay on a series of precision technical tests without undue trouble. Easily portable meters, which are available here too, record vehicle ride, noise and exhaust emission in seconds. This makes for a sharp check on people who may try to devote more attention to the bodywork than on the running units underneath.

One of the problems of all three events is the driving test. In each case the organisers do not seem to be sure whether they are trying accurately to assess each driver's capabilities or whether they are trying to lay on a spectacle to impress the spectators. Provided competent checks can be made on driving standards during the road section it seems to me that—with adequate safety measures— there is no harm in giving the crowd something to look at. Some fairly straightforward against-the-clock manoeuvring exercises can be quite a sight for people not used to large vehicles moving at speed.

A feature of the international rally is that it has a category for operators who wish to run a proper tour to the venue. Thus an operator from Dusseldorf, for example, can work out an itinerary with properly planned overnight stops and sightseeing excursions en route, advertise it, get a coachload of fare-paying passengers and take them down to the South of France for a few days. The municipalities of either Nice ally recoup some of their entry fee from the fares these passengers pay.

I was intrigued to hear a suggestion from one foreign journalist in Monte Carlo that it would be a good idea to alternate the Brighton and international events. While I think there might be insuperable difficulties in organising this, it is an interesting idea. Certainly both events would benefit from more participants from different countries. It was highly encouraging to see two British operators making the marathon trip to Monte Carlo this year and equally disappointing to find that only two foreignowned vehicles made the trip across the Channel to Brighton. Let us hope in future that the dates do not clash so heavily. It is unreasonable to expect competitors to do the 2000-mile round trip, Blackpool-Monte Carlo-Brighton, in a week as the two British entries had to this year.

So what do we really want for coach rallies of the future ? First, some serious thought to timing and dates. It is very arguable whether it is wise to run two events in Britain in the same year, never mind the same week. Both events would surely benefit from being run every other year. It is also about time that some more professional standards were introduced.

The other constructive improvement would be some contact between British and French organisers. This might eventually lead to a truly European event, a showplace for new ideas in coaching, away from the confines of motor shows.

Tags

People: Van Hool
Locations: Paris, Dusseldorf

comments powered by Disqus