• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258

LETTER CAMPAIGN

Zoom page

4th May 1962

Page 92

Page 92, 4th May 1962 — LETTER CAMPAIGN

Close

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

pOPULARITY does not seem to be a problem to Dr. Beeching. He does not play to the gallery. He has a firm idea of the goal at which he is aiming, and proceeds towards it by means of the steps that he finds appropriate. His approach is that of the business man called in to cope with the financial troubles of an organization that once had a monopoly but is now exposed to strong competition. He makes no secret of his intention to ignore unprofitable traffic and concentrate on the business that he hopes will pay for itself. There is no suggestion from him that the railways have any sort of prescriptive right to this business. They are prepared to fight for it on the open market.

That, at least, is the impression that so far has been given. However, other supporters of the railways look at the problem in a different way. They begin with the assumption that certain traffic belongs to the railways, and are interested only in the supporting arguments. Road operators cannot afford to ignore these enthusiasts. They can be extremely plausible. They act in concert and they take pains to turn any opportunity which crops up to their advantage.

Evidence of what is being done is available to anybody who makes a careful study of the newspapers. The announcement of almost any piece of transport news is followed by a display of letters in the Press. Most of them recently have taken a line calculated to discredit the widely held belief that road users pay out in special taxation far more than they receive back from the authorities. In other words, the argument continues, the railways are being treated unfairly. The right thing to do would be to give them the traffic that Dr. Beeching wants. In this way, nearly everybody ought to be pleased, including all the road users for whom the process has not meant a loss of traffic, for they will then have a little more morn to themselves.

The point is made in various ways. Three examples were published in three national newspapers recently within the space of two days. The first correspondent, from an address in Yorkshire, called bluntly for legislation to compel heavy goods to travel by rail, The possibility that the customer ought to have some say in the matter was not even considered. The other two writers, perhaps seeing this snag, were a little more subtle in their approach.

ONE of them had a list of the disadvantages arising from the growth of road transport. They included road accidents, the growth of urban congestion, destruction of amenities and damage to public health. The remaining correspondent also presented a list, this time of the items that he considered should be included in any assessment of the real cost of road transport. Accidents, delays and loss of amenities were also given by him, and he added to them the cost of new roadworks, much of which he considered would be unnecessary with less lorry traffic.

Perhaps the reply to this sort of thing is obvious. Far from being superfluous or undesirable, the new roads would automatically remove most of the other grievances to which, the letters refer, so that the argument should really be in favour of building these roads regardless of cost, although this also could comfortably be taken care of from the revenue contributions of road users. In any event, the items on the lists are not homogenous. Accidents, delays and the like may indeed represent a severe loss to the corn irnunity, but they cannot be compared strictly with sue] things as Exchequer payments for new roads. The rail ways have to pay for their own permanent way, but the have not so far been expected to meet the hypothetic2 cost of rail delays to the community. The individual mu' meet this cost himself, and its likelihood is one of th things he takes into consideration in his choice of a mean of transport.

However obvious this may seem to some readers, ther are many others who will accept the interpretation prc sented by the letters and possibly also go on to accer the conclusion, It may even be the case that the writer themselves believe what they say. Some of the recen correspondence in the Press echoes the heart-cry " Wha a way to run a railway! " from the little boy in every ma who longs to play at trains.

The similarity of the arguments in many other letter; and the concerted attack, make it possible to irnagin that there is some organization at work. Road operator may well feel uneasy at the possibility. If the letters ar not self-inspired, they presumably represent a less popula view than appears on the surface, but they also provid evidence that whoever is promoting the campaign thinks well worth carrying out.

THERE is nothing greatly reprehensible in this practice although there have from time to time been criticisms c it where it has been adopted for other purposes. Th newspaper reader, like the buyer of any other commodit) must beware. If he is taken in by false analogies o unsound arguments, he has only himself to blame. Th question more to the point is whether road operators, an especially the carriers of heavy loads who seem to be th chief object of criticism, can do anything in return to pu their case to the public, and thereby to present the tru picture.

The attacks should not go unanswered. There can b few newspapers that do not have several road operatoi among their readers. Whenever an operator comes a.croE a criticism of his industry among the correspondenc columns, he should have no difficulty in pointing out ths the kind of proposal put forward would deny trade an industry the right to decide what transport medium suit them best.

The ultimate purpose of the campaign is not entire' clear. However strong the pressure, it hardly seems likel that any Government would be so foolish as to introduc compulsion in order to force traffic to the railways, apai from the fact that the heaviest loads of all can be carrie only by road. The real intention may be to achiev something like the same result by other means, that is t say to create a public demand, especially among motorist for taxation of the operators of the larger commerck vehicles on a scale that would really justify the use of th much-abused word " penal." It is notoriously easy t persuade some motorists that the lorry is the cause c half their troubles..

Propaganda along these lines might well have as prelude an attempt to show that road users are getting o lightly, whatever they may say about the taxes they hal, to pay. Operators must therefore take seriously the pre liininary barrage, even if the material of which it composed seems to be flimsy and unlikely to persuade th reasonably sensible legislator.