OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 54
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for mews
expressed is accepted.
THE NEW REGULATIONS FOR HEAVY MOTORCARS.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL Moron.
12619]Sir,—We feel that the Heavy Motor Car (Amendment) Order, 1927, is of such a nature that comment such as this should be general rather than particular. Most of the regulations now given the force of law have been before the industry for some considerable time, have been fully discussed and have also been the subject of conference between the S.M.M. and T. and the M.O.T. Manufacturers in general, therefore, have been able to construct machines in accordance with proposed legislation, and we do not think any specific items in the Order will come as a hardship to British firms.
We favour the application of limits to the overall length and the amount of overhang of all heavy motorcars, also the fixing of limits for the turning circle and ground clearance for heavy motorcars used as public-service vehicles; but we feel that the increase in overall length to 27 ft. 6 ins, accompanied by the recommendation in paragraph 12 of .M.O.T. Circular No. 268 (Roads), that councils should not license machines exceeding 26 ft. in overall length, is inconsistent. The licensing regulations in different parts of the country are already sufficiently divergent, and we feel that the whole object of new legislation should be to regularize the position. If the permissible length is to be 27 ft. 6 ins., we feel that it should be of universal application.
Broadly speaking, we think the Order is' a step in the right direction, and is an advance instalment of ultimate legislation which will remove finally the anomalies which at present exist—Yours faithfully, J. D. PARKES, Director.
Glasgow. (For Albion Motor Car Co., Ltd.)
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL ilbiOTOR.
[2620] Sir,—Speaking generally, our view on the new Order is that when the construction of vehicles is subject to regulations these should be made uniform for the entire country and not left to varying by-laws of different licensing authorities. We therefore regard the present Order as a step in the right direction.
It is a great pity that the Minister could not see his way clear to introduce more of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on public-service vehicles, seeing that these recommendations. are now in th„graselves two-years old, and we do not find any particular difficulty in working to them so far as four-wheeled vehicles are concerned; in fact, all our passengervehicle designs are now produced on this basis.
The only real criticism we have of the Arnendment Order itself is that the wording is rather involved, and, having to he interpreted by local authorities and the police, as well as the motor trade, some differences in the reading are bound to arise.—Yours faithfully, J'. PARKER GARNER, Director., Birmingham. (For Garner Motors, Ltd.)
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL Moron,.
[2621] Sir,—We welcome the new Order and consider it satisfactory. We should have preferred the maximum axle weight on the rigid six-wheeler to have been 51 tons for passenger carrying, to allow for future developments in double-deck bus construction. '
Now that all conjecture with regard to size limitations is settled, trade should be stimulated thereby.—
Yours faithfully, V. 0. SKINNER, Director.
London, N.7. (For Gilford Motor Co., Ltd.)
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2622] Sir,—We have now had an opportunity of carefully studying the Order and are very pleased to see that it governs the construction of public-service vehicles, will be a safeguard to the public, and will prove of assistance to manufacturers in standardizing requirements. With regard to the details of the Order, we believe that, generally, they will meet with approval, but it appears to be extremely regrettable and unfortunate that some of the contents of the Circular accompanying the Order have largely nullified some of the provisions of the Order. The particular points we have in mind are
Overall length.—Whilst the Order provides on fourwheeled passenger vehicles an overall length of 27 ft. 6 ins, and on six-wheeled vehicles 30 ft., the Circular (paragraph 12) says: "The Minister -is still of the opinion that as a general practice councils should not license buses which exceed 26 ft. in overall length," and in the Appendix : " Normally, however, buses exceeding 26 ft. in overall length should not be licensed."
It was hoped and anticipated that the longer lengths would be standardized, and surely the average roads up and down the country; particularly with the improvements which are constantly taking place, are sufficiently good to justify these lengths without any difficulty.
Where, in the comparatively small number of cases, narrow roads, or other circumstances, do not justify the longer lengths, then the vehicles operating on such routes could be restricted to the shorter dimensions.
As the position stands at the moment, it would appear that the effect of the Circular will be that 26-ft. overall length will be standard and in a few exceptional cases longer overall lengths will be permitted, which, in view of the conditions which exist on the road to-day, is, in our opinion, undesirable, because if passenger transport is to be provided at the most economical rate profitable to the operating concern it can only be done by having the vehicles of the largest passenger-carrying capacity.
Turning circle—Although the Order provides for 66 ft. where vehicles exceed 26.-ft. overall length, still in the Appendix to the Circular the turning circle is restricted to 60 ft., and all that we have said above applies equally well to this point. While considering the question of the Order, it does seem distinctly unfortunate that apparently the Order is not applicable to the whole of the British Isles, and in this connection we would say we have just seen a copy of the Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland, Road Vehicles, which has recently been published, and many of the constructional requirements for publicservice vehicles differ materially from those provided for under the Heavy Motorcar (Amendment) Order, particularly as regards lengths, wheel track, road wheels, brakes, springs, height inside, ground clearance, maximum height of steps, and, in the case of coaches, minimum height of hoods, etc.
It will be appreciated in these circumstances that it is not possible for manufacturers to get down to that degree of standardization which is so desirable and enable them to produce vehicles at the lowest possible price.—Yours faithfully,
SYDNEY S. GOT, Managing Director.
Wolverhampton. (For Guy Motors, Ltd.)
The Editor, THE COWMERCIAL MOTOR.
12623] Sir,--We have carefully perused the new -Order and, broadly speaking, consider the regulations set out therein to be quite reasonable and satisfactory from the manufacturer's point of view.,
With particular reference to the new restrictions imposed on braking systems, extent of overhang, and the limitation of overall dimensions, we are of the opinion that these are conducive to greater safety, not only in motor-coach traffic but to road users hi general, and we think that any move in this direction must foster a desirable public feeling towards motor coach and bus transport, to the ultimate advantage of the industry.—Yours faithfully,
WM. WILSON HAM ILL, General Manager. (For Morris-Commercial Cars, Ltd.) Birmingham.