ML
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Itavto. , ete
iv@ disturbed to read the or (CM, July 14) in which u c ncluded that "there is a ner I lack of awareness in the iach) industry on the requireritl of the EEC drivers hours jut tionsand that "many me -drivers and small opera-s aye not received any ineic ions on drivers' hours Ice anuary . . ."
The great majority of our ?.m ers are small operators d e have kept them inrn d of changes in the law as ,v. ave happened. At the beim g of this year we issued a ;-p ge leaflet explaining int by-point the requirements th EEC regulations and how .ey are being phased in. In diti n we report on developeat in our Newsletter each )nt and, when necessary, re f rther advice on matters of tail
Indeed, in 11 out of the last
• PT Newsletters there has en mention of this subject. In ne the front-page heading id 'Drivers' hours — are you id ?"
0 record books, we have nil rised all of our members to vis them of the need to keep ap r records. (And if you will 3u e the commercial, one of ) b nefits of CPT membership h availability of compaLiv ly inexpensive record ok tailored to the needs of er tors!). Work is currently in agiess on detailed notes of idonce on record keeping, iich we will shortly be circuin to members.
0 course there is concern lo g psv operators.about this w law, because it is ndicuisly complicated so much so 3t we frequently hear about fo cement officers getting n s wrong. However, that is It the same thing as being aviare — quite the contrary. iy lingering doubts about the iia eness would be quickly ;p lied if you knew how many quiries we handled on the bje;ct each day 1 rEyvART .1, BROWN,
rblic Relations Officer, nifederation of British 'ad Passenger Transport, 'coin's Inn Fields, London C2.
Ni-ilst CPT is to be commended for ?ping its members informed of EEC ■ ulations there are a number of coach erators and owner drivers who are
■ ther CPT members nor CM readers Ii is these who may not be totally ,are of the current requirements. — Ed. I hope you will give one who is so wrongly accused by K. Cure (CM, July 14) of being a "lorry hater'' the right to reply • to a letter which so adequately portrays the "Luddism" and ignorance it accuses others of. Mr Cure applies statistics to show that what is, must be maintained and that any attempt to change will result in
some horrible national economic catastrophe.
Firstly he accuses those who wish to see an improvement in our environment and show concern for the future of being "lorry haters''. This is far from true, since most people I know do not object to the lorry or road haulage, but to its grosser excesses in the form of the socalled juggernaut and the cowboy antics (should it not be outlaw antics?) of a significant membership of the road haulage fraternity.
Secondly Mr Cure mixes up the need for people to "have access to goods and services" with the need for -movement of goods and people-. I am sure most industrialists would prefer to have their suppliers and their markets accessible without the need for transport, as I am sure most of us would like to be able to shop, visit relatives and have a night out without having to drive (or for that matter catch a bus).
Thirdly he claims road transport constitutes such a big slice of the GNP it must be good for and should continue to grow. The fact is that it is transport, and particularly road transport, which is beginning to be a prime reason for increasing inflation and unemployment; the operation is not productive and tends to transport unemployment from areas of high labour costs to areas of low labour cost.
Fourthly, lorries are noisy, dirty and surrounded by hidden costs, and even the Department of Transport, who are not noted for being anti-road transport, admits this.
Fifthly, new roads are sorely needed but not in general those the "road lobby" promotes, but the small-scale by-passes which would bring benefit to people and perhaps not so much profit to the road builders and hauliers.
Sixthly, Transport 2000 is supported by the rail unions but it should be remembered that, unlike the "road lobby", those "rail unions" include lorry drivers, bus drivers, dockworkers and merchant seamen in their membership.
Seventh, with the experience this nation has had with competition with Germany and France, and the fact that Germany and France send much more of their freight by rail than we do, a transfer of significant quantities of freight from road to rail is likely to improve our competitive position.
Eighth, we do not think lorry drivers are an anti-social group, but more a group of ordinary human beings, perhaps slightly misled, who would be better off driving smaller lorries over shorter distances, working less hours and so reducing the number of unemployed drivers and benefiting society at the same time.
Ninthly, I do not recall Terence O'Neill, but I am sure he was a brave man. However I will pose the question why his act of bravery was necessary and why he had to lose his life —
was it because his vehicle was unsafe in some way?
Finally, I will stress the point to those drivers and operators, and others who may read this — the environmental lobby is not anti-lorry, is not anti-road (we promote bus transport), but it does oppose the wasteful expenditure and destruction created by building unnecessary motorways and roads with the sole aim of benefiting the haulier and road builder.
It is anti-juggernaut and seeks a reduction in gross vehicle weights and will fight for a reduction in the pollution and waste of natural resources which are endemic in road transport. Mr Cure should remember — oil is running out — so a 10 per cent reduction in its use by road transport today means 10 per cent more in the future. Perhaps that 10 per cent saved will ensure some of the motorways still in the preparation stage will actually see some traffic when they are built.
H. T. HARVEY, Press Officer — T2000 West Midlands, Cannock, Staffs_
examitic
It is obvious that a planned course of study is necessary for anyone taking the Royal Society of Arts examination for the Certificate of Competence. However I disagree with your correspondent, Les Knight, who stated in his letter (CM, July 21) that full-time courses run by the Group Training Associations are -the most economical and suitable courses for the transport industry".
This may be so in a number of cases, but there are those who would prefer to undertake their studies in a More leisurely fashion by going along to the local "tech" for one evening a week during the winter months.
My own college is running such a course, for a fee of under E10. One can hardly call that uneconomic when compared with the fee charged by the Group Training Associations, 'even when taking into account the fact that much of the fee paid to such associations is recoverable as grant from the Road Transport industry Training Board.
LESLIE J. OLDRIDGE, Sainthill Close, Exeter, Devon.