AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Speed and Weight Anomalies

6th August 1937, Page 21
6th August 1937
Page 21
Page 21, 6th August 1937 — Speed and Weight Anomalies
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?

THE most outstanding of the many anomalies of the legislation by which road transport is regulated is undoubtedly that which demarks the goods vehicle weighing more than 24 tons unladen from those below that limit, particularly in respect of the speed at which the vehicle may travel.

The effect of this has been mischievous in the extreme, in a variety of ways. First, it has had a pernicious effect upon design, causing manufacturers to concentrate unduly upon the production of chassis able, with lightweight bodywork, to come within the critical figure of -unladen weight, yet capable of carrying a maximum pay-load. Secondly, it has created an undesirable gap in the range of vehicle size and capacity, so that there is a decided jump from what might be termed "maximum-load chassis coming within the 24-ton limit" to the next in load capacity, which, to all intents and purposes, is the maximum-load four-wheeler. The demand for intermediate chassis is infinitesimal. In the third place, it has given undue preponderance to the lightweight category of goods-carrying vehicles. According to the 1937 edition of "The Motor Industry of Great Britain," published by the S.M.M. and T., the new registrations in 1936 of vehicles in the category of 24 tons unladen total 22,269; those in excess of that figure add up to only 2,505; that is to say, the former is 89.9 per cent. of the new registrations of goods vehicles weighing more than 2 tons unladen. In 1931 the percentage was only 41.9. There is no doubt that the latter figure more nearly represents the normal and natural proportion.

The object was to ensure a greater measure of safety upon the road, the opinion of our legislators evidently being that it was unsafe to allow the heavier vehicles to travel at more than 20 m.p.h. Actually, the braking mechanism of modern heavy vehicles is amply sufficient to ensure safety at speeds in excess of 30 m.p.h. On the other hand, the result of the almost consistent habit of over-loading vehicles of less than 24 tons weight unladen has been to reduce the factor of safety.

Finally, it is undoubted that this variation in the speed limit and the resultant overloading of the lighter types of vehicle are responsible for a considerable proportion of the chaos in haulage rates and of the rate-cutting which.is so prevalent. It is not, as is sometimes imagined, the placing of 5-ton loads upon a 3-ton chassis which enables rates to be cut; as a matter of fact, the penalties in the way of increased maintenance and repair cost often more than compensate for any apparent increased revenue due to that cause.

The capacity to cut rates comes solely from the legal right to travel at 30 m.p.h., as against the 20 m.p.h. which is all that is permitted to the law-abiding haulier who loads his chassis judiciously and in accord-a-nce with its safe carrying capacity. There is hardly any clause in the Road and Rail Traffic Act which is so urgently ihi need of revision as that relating to the speed limit.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus