AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ribble Fight Proposals to Ban Lower-deck Smoking

4th September 1959
Page 42
Page 42, 4th September 1959 — Ribble Fight Proposals to Ban Lower-deck Smoking
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?

AT Blackpool last week Ribble Motor Services, Ltd.. contended-that the provisions of Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, were never intended to give Traffic Commissioners power to deal with the question of smoking on vehicles. They strongly opposed the North Western Traffic Commissioners' proposals to include a ban on lower-deck smoking in their double-deck vehicles.

The chairman, Mr. F. Williamson. said that in 1958 representations from individuals and the boroughs of Crosby. Bootle and Chorley, opposed the renewal of Ribble licences in order to seek a no-smoking condition, The Ribble company maintained that the Commissioners had no power to impose such a condition, but after seeking advice he was satisfied that it was to the convenience of the public under Section 72.

The Commissioners' proposal to vary the Ribble licences would affect 40 other operators with whom the company ran joint services. They had been included in the proposals so that Ribble would not be at a disadvantage. Some of these companies already banned lower-deck smoking and of them 12 had objected to the proposals. Six had intimated they had no objection.

Mr. J. Hepple, Town Clerk of Crosby, said his council were the originators of the proposals following representations made to them in 1956 by the Society of Non-Smokers—who presented a petition signed by 2,000 people. There were only a few large undertakings in the country without a similar ban and whilst they were not against smoking as such, it was, to many people, offensive and in some cases harmful.

In the Liverpool area, he said, other operators including Crosville Motor-Services, Ltd., and Liverpool Transport Department already prohibited lower

deck smoking. Their proposals were supported by the Lancashire NonCounty Boroughs Association.

Mr. F. D. Walker, for Ribble and their associated companies, said that after 40 years of freedom they thought it was wrong to change unless there was evidence of a real public demand. Their own researches into the matter pointed completely the other way. A prohibition would affect 46 to 49 per cent. of their double-decker space, and, in the event or

138 it being put into force, distinctions ought to be made between local and long-distance services.

Of the 91 local authorities in the Association mentioned only six had actively supported a ban and three were against it, he said. Until the Society of Non-Smokers became active there had been no representation from any local authority, their 8.000 members could only be a very small minority among Ribble's two hundred million passenger journeys annually There had been little or no complaint from passengers concerning smoking over the years. concluded. Mr. Walker.

On behalf of the North Western Road Car Co., Ltd„ Mr. W. Woolley, assistant traffic manager, said that although his company displayed " no-smoking" notices in the lower deck, under the 1936 Regulations they had a right to waive the rule if desired and did so on certain long-distance and workers' services.

If a condition was imposed on their road-service licences it would have to be obeyed in all circumstances and although only seven of their licences were affected by the present proposals, other local authorities would be encouraged to seek an overall ban.

After hearing passenger evidence, the Commissioners adjourned to give their decision later.


comments powered by Disqus