Whose fault?
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• While I admire the fact that you and your magazine are at least attempting to do something positive with regard to the proposed 50mph HGV speed limit one surely has to question why once again it's the haulage industry that is being asked to take up the cudgels. It does seem that any time we are faced with some new bureaucratic interference the haulier readily accepts that it is his responsibility to solve whatever problem it has created.
Having then found a way of ensuring his survival until the next spanner is thrown in the works he feels proud of his ability in finding a solution, even if that solution only meant he stood still, or in many cases, went backwards.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Kidman's sentiments with regard to bureaucratic interference (CM 28 Nov-4 Dec) and for similar reasons I totally support your campaign. But as for most of the other reasons that have been put forward it does seem to highlight how negative the thinking is within some quarters of the industry, and is totally lacking in the confidence to tackle and exploit to its own advantage the positive spin-offs some of these laws present for them.
Some opposition is given to the fact that more trucks may be required. So what?
We must be the only industry that whinges about a law that may result in an increase for our services. However, I would seriously question that potential as in my experience the faster you get there the longer you spend in a queue. Mind you, there do seem to be some who firmly believe that a mile is not a mile when it is covered at subsonic speeds and thus feel justified in slicing their rates (well that's what I think they think!). So yes, I can see how he would be affected, but as the speed limit never figured much in his reckoning before I don't reckon it will in the future.
Mind you, as we all know, that type of haulier is very much in the minority so we shouldn't even be considering his plight, should we? Neither should we be asked to work ourselves up into a lather and readily accept ourselves as fallguys.
It should be the manufacturers who are the worried ones because should this 50mph business result in any financial hardship we will all close ranks as usual and simply pass the increase on to our customers. Considering how hard the haulage industry worked towards creating the well disciplined, much revered and highly regarded organisation that we so richly deserve that shouldn't be so hard to do. Peter Harrison
Keighley, West Yorks.
Changing views?
• Confused? That's certainly what I am. Your comments column (CM 28 Nov-4 Dec) was definitely for 44 tonnes. Yes?
Page 5 and 41 — keep speed up. Yes? Page 16 — "He felt that wheel loss was a legacy of the increasing size of lorries and road speeds." True or false?
Therefore truckers and Commercial Motor are responsible. Yes or No?
Do I detect a slight flaw in our arguments?
P Waterworth Washington,
Tyne & Wear.
Peter Waterworth refers to a lost wheel story in our legal pages (CM 28 Nov-4 Dec) and he is right to point out what many operators and the IRTE believe. Namely that wheel fixing designs have been outpaced by operating patterns. As for a flaw in our argument over the 60mph limit, we don't see it — Ed.
Tough curtains
• I read with interest the letter from Mr Tonge of Nuneaton (CM 12-18 Dec) regarding the strength of curtainsided bodies, and I am reminded of an incident involving a curtainsider manufactured by Nicodeme in Belgium.
The Nicodeme vertical lifting curtain system, which is designed to clamp and retain a load, was put to extreme test in a motorway incident when the driver of an articulated outfit had to take swift avoiding action and in doing so drove down an embankment, tipping over the trailer which was loaded with 20 tonnes of bottled beer.
The curtain held the load, and apart from the beer that the driver needed, not one bottle was broken? A Burton, Cranfield, Beds.
Commercial Motor welcomes readers' letters, which can be phoned in on 081-661 3689 (24-hour service). Letters may be edited for length and do not necessarily represent the views of the editor.