Motorbus World.
Page 8
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Our Editorial remarks in a recent issue, with regard to the London General Omnibus Co.'s intended sale of 900 superseded chassis, and of this concern's probable intentions with regard to manufacture for the open market, have been widely quoted, and in some cases misquoted. A financial paper definitely announces that the London General has the intention of manufacturing cars for private users. This is obviously inaccurate.
The L.G.O. Boom.
At the time of going to press, L.G.O. ordinary stock is experiencing another extraordinary boom ; it went to 15, but closed, on Tuesday, at 145. This increased quotation is stated to be due to rumours that the underground-railway interests are prepared to guarantee 10 per cent. on the stock, in order to be able to control the corn petition of the bus company. The Stock Exchange has also taken notice of this company's ultimate intention to manufacture for the open market, and this no doubt has acted as a " bull" factor. That the underground interests, which have not yet been enabled to pay 10 per cent, themselves or anything like it, should feel it necessary to guarantee that rate of dividend on the stock of their most prominent antagonists is truly Cilbertian.
Heads Together Again.
Yet another conference of London municipal authorities is shortly to be convened, with the object of considering the alleged damage to roads by motorbuses. The sub sidiary subject of mud splashing will, it is understood, also be before this new conference. The Hampstead Borough Council is the prime mover in this new agitation. Sargent v. L.G.O.C. and Others.
An action was heard last week, before Mr. Justice Grantham and a special jury, in which Mrs. Mary Ann Sargent, a dressmaker, sought to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the driver of a motorbus owned by the L. G.O.C., and (or) by the negligence of the driver of a motorcar owned by the defendants, Messrs. Lavington. Mr. Marshall K.O., and Mr. Clarke-Hall appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Sanderson, K.C., and Mr. Drake for the L.o.o.c., and Mr. ClavellSalter, K.C., and Mr. Ernest Charles for the other defendants. The plaintiff stated that while walking in Fulham Road on 26111 October, 1910, a motorbus and a private car approached her. The motorcar attempted to pass the motorbus on the off side, and it is stated that in order to give MGM to a cyclist who was proceeding in the opposite direction, the motorcar driver turned his car slightly to the near side, and that, therefore, the near back wheel of the motorcar struck the off front wheel of the mot orbus, causing its front wheels to turn to the near side, with the result that it ran over the side walk and pinned the plaintiff against the wall. The omnibus company's defence was that its driver lost con• trol of the steering wheel when the driver of the motorcar negligently crashed into the motorbus. The owners of the motorcar stated that the collision was caused by the young and inexperienced driver of the motorbus, who negligently turned his Front wheels to the off side just as the motorcar was passing.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff for £750 against all the defendants, assessing the damages at £600 against the owners of the motorcar and £150 against the omnibus company. Mr. Justice Grantham would not agree to tbis severance of the damages.
An Impressionist Photograph.
We reproduce on this page a remarkable photograph of a London General motorbus that was taken at night-time by the illumination of its own lighting equipment only. This installation i8 of the latest " C.A.V." pattern, manufactured by Messrs. C. A. Vandervell and Co., of Acton Vale, W. The plant is specially designed for motorbus lighting, although, of course, it can be used for illuminated advertisements and similar purposes in eon nection with all types of commercial vehicles. The bus that is illustrated has been utilized for a number of exhaustive tests of this new lighting equipment, and we are informed by the makers that these have now terminated quite satisfactorily.
City of London Regulations.
At a meeting of the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, on the 27th tilt, at the Guildhall, at which the Lord Mayor presided, it was decided to extend for a further period of three months the operation of the new regulations made by the Court in November last under the City of London Street Traffic Act, 1909, with regard to the omnibus routes in the City. This formal extension was necessary in order to prevent the regulations from lapsing automa,tically.
L.C.C. Tramway Decline.
The Highways Committee of the L.O.C. is obliged to make the best of its bad case, and to do all in its power to retard the inevitable state of decline to which the tramways undertaking is being reduced by motorbus competition. The Board of Trade and the Metropolitan Police, for reasons which any dispassionate and impartial person must consider adequate, have failed to see their way to give consent for the. linking together of double-deck tramcars. We wrote at sonic length, in our issue of the 7th September, upon the " Menace of trailer tramcars," and we are glad, now, to observe Departmental con
currence. it is stated that theL.C.C. will seek Parliamentary Dowers. We hope it will. A debate in the House would provide useful publicity for various germane matters concerning its doings.