" EXTRAORDINARY TRAFFIC."
Page 10
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Resumed Hearing of the Weston-super-Mire Case. Who Shall Pay the Cost of Road Betterment ? The Defendants' Case Opened.
0 tir TUESDAY, 25th June, after an adjournment over the week-end, a resumption was Made of the case of the Weston-super-Mare -Urban District Council against Henry Butt and Co., Ltd., in which there is being fought out the principle as to whether the betterment of the roads rendered necessary by the introduction of mechanical traction shall fall upon the owners of the.reads (the local authorities) or upon the individual user against whom it can be contended that his traffic is "extraordinary traffic," and that it is causing undue wear and tear of, the roads.
Messrs. Henry Butt and Co., Ltd., have for over 30 years moved lime and limestone Irons their 'quarries on the high ground north of Weston to the railway station in the town and to the wharf. The introduction of steam wagons and trailers in 1913 was followed, according to the plaintiff's evidence, by 'an . increase in the cost of maintenance of the roads used
by the defendants' vehicles whilst in 1916 the roads had to be entirely reconierueted and strengthened with granite to withstand the heavy wear aild tear imposed upon them. • The first witness on the resuniption of the case was Mr.Lessel S. Mackenzie City Engineer of • Bristol, who said limestone roes were sufficient for
the traffic of Weston. There were 200 miles of such roads in Bristol. Defendants' steam wagons wen/ likely to cause the damage to the roads described, and in his opinion limestone itself was not good enough for such traffic, which would necessitate the 'reconstruction of the roads with harder material. If the limestone roads in Bristol had to carry heavy traffic he would mix the limestone with tar or pitch' before putting it down. Except in the case of a gradient, where it would make it difficult for horse traffic, he thought a tar macadam limestone road would be suitable for heavy traffic.up to 1500 tons a day. Damage done by heavy traffic would depend on how it was carried—whether it were occasional or Continuous in all sorts of weather. Sixteen or
_ seventeen journeys a day would soon have.an effect. Mr. Samuel Stradling, Chairman of the Highways Committee of the Weston-super-Mare Urban District Council, stated that he had seen defendants' • second tractor, which was called ",Little Willie,'"
descend Arundell Road at. a speed of 15 miles an hour, and he had complained to Mr. Henry Butt, who replied -" It is impossible ; it can't go at that speed! He alleged that the wagon tore up the road and made a trench of mud.
It was stated that out of a total of 53,102 tons of traffic taken by census on the Bristol Road, Weston, between 18th May and_ 19th October, 1916, Messrs. Butt's traffic amounted to 26,415 tons, their weekly average steam-driven traffic being 1148 tons.
Mr.Sidney Coles Smith, Clerk to the Weston Council, stated that from February to December, 1916-213 working days (excluding July and August) —the number of journeys of defendants tractors waki 1780, an average of eight per day. The steam wagons
. exceeded the maximum weight of 12 tons on 208 occasions, and the steam trailer its Maximum of 8 tens on 99 occasions.
This concluded the case for the plaintiffs.
_Mr. M.aughain then began his address on behalf of
the defendants. He reuiarked that so far very little light had been thrown on the expression " extraordinary traffic." He could only find one case which seemed to illumine the subject at all. That was in the .case of the Billericay Urban District Council, 1911, 2 King's Bench cases: This was a case of
alleged damage to roads by traction engines drawing trucks, and from this casehe gathered that to succeed in an action of th:s kind three things were to be proved: (1) that the traffic was extraordinary on the roads in question, (2) that, being extraordinary, it had caused damage, (3) that these two circumstances had caused extraordinary expenses.
The observations of Lord Justice Moulton in giviiig judgment did throw a side light on what was extraordinary traffic. His Lordship pointed out that the traffic of a man who from the nature of his business used one road more than another did not necessarily become " extraordinary."
Suppose ten men carrying on the same business and used a certain road without payment, and those businesses were amalgamated into a company nothing would be more unfair than to make the company pay. A man might build up h great business and perhaps becoine responsible for practically the whole traffic in a neighbourhood. How could it be said such a man was responsible for " extraordinary traffic "? That was not the test, he submitted. The test was whether traffic was extraordinary on a particular road having regard to surrounding circumstances, and the nature of The traffic for which that particular road ought to be constructed to maintain. Counsel submitted that Bristol Road, Arundell Road. and Church Road were principal roads in Weston, and roads that might reasonably have been expected to be called upon to carry heavy trafficsuch as Messrs. Butt's motor wagons. There was evidence from the reports of the Surveyor to the Council As early as 1909 and 1910 that the necessity for better roads to carry the increase of traffic was recognized. It never had been part of his ease that Messrs. Butt's tractors did not wear the roads, lant it could not.be said they were the only wearers of the roads, for -.there was substantial traffic upon them besides Messrs. Butt's. A curious feature of the case was that only small portions of the roads seemed to have been damaged and that large lengths had not -been injured at all.
He was not contending that Messrs. Butt's traffic would be ordinary traffic on all the roads in Weston, but on Bristol Road and Arundel Road it was not "extraordinary traffic." The traffic could be carried with perfect ease on roads properly constructed of
lime stone with tar macadam surface, and the great expenditure on Arundell Road was quite unnecessary and an error of judgment.
There was no satisfactory' proof that. the tractors exceeded the limit, and the excess in weights were so trivial that the excess could not possibly have had anything to do with the damage to the roads. _Neither .weight nor speed had anything to do. with the case except, pernaps, as an exaggeration if it was held the traffic was "extraordinary." He denied that theirtraffic was extraordinary within the meaning of the Act, but that, if it were found to be extraordinary, then he submitted it was not true to say that the Council had incurred any extraordinary expense in consequence. If what had been done by Messrs. Butt since 1913 had been done by half-a-dozen people, instead of by one firm, it would never have been said the traffic was extra
ordinary. Such traffic as that of the defendants ought to have been anticipated by the Council. Mr. Henry Howard Humphreys, consulting engineer, Victoria Street, was then called, and said he had never ceased to preach the doctrine that local authorities must give up the use of limestone for roads. required to carry considerable traffic. It made the dirtiest kind of road and quickly became disintegrated. if, however, tar macadam had been put on the Surface the roads at Weston would have
answered all purposes required and have carried Messrs. Butt's traffic, but they had been alloived to live on their capital account. In spite of what other witnesses had said, 'he strongly held that the founda.tions of the roads mentioned were not injured to any extent.
Mr. Walter John Hadfield, City Surveyor of Sheffield, said there were many roads in his area similar to the roads at Weston. In 1911, Sheffield anticipated the increased lorry traffic, and the cost of the maintenance of the roads in consequence had substantially decreased rather than increased. Where there was little traffic, they were eatisked to tar spray these roads, but, where there was heavy traffic, they took
up the limestone surface and put down a tar macadam hurface. Broadly speaking, they did not disturb the foundations of the roads. The holes in the roads at
Weston were caused, he believed, by fast moving rubber tyres, which sucked up anything they :could suck up, which steel tyres, as on defendants' tractors,
did not. He did not notice the least sign of disturbance of the foundations of the Weston roads., which did not show more than ,wear and tear. Lorry traffic on tar-sprayed limestone would. not cut up the surface, but would increase the wear and tear.
• Mr. Macmorra.n (in cross-examination): You have said on another occasion that, in your opinion, steeltyred wagons do more damage to loads than other vehicles ?
Witness said he was then referring to paved roads only. ' Mr. John Wilmot, County Surveyor of Warwickshire, bore out the evidence of the last witness. He said when there was any considerable traffic he found it better to get the material used mixed with tar rather than to continue to use a water-bound surface. Tarmac had answered excellently. Mr. Scholefield (cross-examining): If water-bound limestone roads 'would carry the quarry • traffic in carts for eight or nine years, how long would they carry the traffic in motor wagons ?
Witness: That would depend on how the roads were kept Up. I should say they would only last, a few Years I cannot, however, put a period to the roads with such traffic.
Witness added: If you continue to repair in the obsolete old way such.traffic as Messrs. Butt's would increase the wear and tear and increase the authority's road bill. Mr. Scholefield : What you say is the road authority should have altered their mode of repair ?
Witness answered : Yes. The hearing will occupy most. of this week.