Counter-attack
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
pREPARATION of an answer to the recent campaign against the lorry driver is helped by a knowledge of the factors that give the attacks their strength and their popular appeal. Their serious, if not very sensible, economic machinery is constructed, like the not dissimilar artistic effusions of Ernett, largely out of the current railway situation. The argument has the merits and demerits of simplicity. The railways are losing money because they are not getting enough traffic; eminently suitable traffic is being carried in large quantities in long-distance heavy lorries; transfer the traffic and the problem is solved.
By luck or design, indigenous fuel for the machinery is found in plenty below the sub-conscious level of perhaps as many as a million motorists who, with their pent-up resentment at the stresses and strains of present-day driving, gladly accept the all-too-visible target offered to them. With such a fuel, as recent press publicity has demonstrated, &nen a gimcrack machine can achieve impressive results.
There has •been evidence in the past week or so that the choice of fuel has not been entirely fortuitous. ' The latest serious statement of the economic case has been presented in an article in The Times. It does not fulminate against the dinosaur or any other problem, but it still comes to the conclusion that heavy long-distance goods traffic should be forced on to the railways, the suggested method being a penal increase in the licence duties on the offending vehicles.
WHAT is also interesting is that the writer, although he acknowledges that the railways need more passengers just as much as they need more freight, specifically rules out the possibility of forcing Motorists to go by train. From an impartial point of view, it should be just as easy to tax the motorist as the commercial-vehicle operator, and such a measure would have the added advantage that it would not put up the cost of public transport. Could the writer-s dismissal of the idea as not "feasible " he due to his realization that it would at once lose him the support of the whole motoring public? At the same time, he would not be able to include in his list of five benefits from his proposal, the suggestion that " private motoring would become far safer and more pleasurable."
To divide and conquer may well be his deliberate intention. Not only does he drive a wedge between the motorist and the lorry driver, buthe also shows signs of a much greater dislike for the C licence holder than for the haulier. Using a familiar technique, he varies his tactics so that the precise target is never quite certain. Such a device naturally increases the difficulty of delivering a completely adequate reply.
'Nevertheless, at the serious level at which this kindof attack is projected, the counter-attack should not be unreasonably hard;. and in fact is almost invariably given by transport associations, individual members arid their supporters, whenever the occasion arises. There is seldom a lack of telling arguments at what may be called the academic level, for the lack of substance in the straightforward back-to-rail-at-all-costs line continually makes fools of its expositors.
A good example from the article in The Times is the statement that " such excellent services" as the Condor between London and Glasgow " are not used to anything like capacity," the inference being that the Government should take steps to fill the empty trucks. If the statement has meaning, it has no significance. For all I know, the Condor may indeed have many excellent qualities, such as speed, punctuality and reliability. If it is not being used, then presumably it is not wanted, and an analysis of qualities is irrelevant. It is pointless to write about the Condor in the same terms as an avant garde theatre, that may have a case for a Government subsidy although it has little popular appeal. .
THIS kind of argument should find plenty of opposition and is hardly likely to be taken seriously at Government level. On what 1 have called the subconscious plane. the task is less easy. It would be a bad mistake to reply to the
belligerent motorist by attacking him. His attitude is largely irrational, proof against threats as well as arguments, and a frontal attack would compel the more moderate motorists to come to his support; thus giving effect to one of the unspoken aims of the anti-road transport lobby.
Road operator's must perhaps accept that for a time they will have the enmity of a portion of the motoring public. They must do everything possible to see that the infection does not spread. This means setting and maintaining high standards for vehicles and drivers. Appearances must not be neglected. Many a well-maintained and well-operated vehicle looks slovenly and thereby throws away an opportunity of fostering good public relations. The battle against diesel smoke must be unremitting.
It is a grave problem that the faulty vehicle and the discourteous lorry driver stand out like one black sheep in a flock. Their shortcornings and behaviour are the subject of comment the rest are taken for granted. This handicap to the good name of the road transport industry may never be completely overcome, but there are ways of mitigating it. For example, most reputable operators belong to one of the transport asSociations and have the right to display the association emblem on their vehicles. If the right were more widely exercised, the less reputable operators might come to be recognized as those who displayed no sign of allegiance. Moforists might even be encouraged to let the association know of instances where the display of its badge appeared to be to its discredit—or the reverse.
THE long-term policy would loo: forward to a time when the neurosis of the motorist would be eased. Already there is it growing realization that the road vehicle is not being used to the best advantage, that it is becoming less and less possible to escape from congestion, noise, . fumes and physical danger. Planning of new towns and of old towns takes into account the fact that space is precious, at the kerb, in the service areas, in the loading and storage departments, and so on; and that the proper use of road transport means the best utilization of space.
Support for this conception is one positive way in which operators can counter the present attacks on them. That they are already thinking along these lines is shown by such activities as the campaign by the Traders' Road Transport Association for making better use of kerb space, and by the campaign for speedier turnround of vehicles more recently initiated by the Road Haulage Association.