1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
THE WEEK
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FTA probes customer reaction to test scheme
• After over two years of operation, is the Government's good vehicle plating and testing scheme still a good idea? Is it working satisfactorily? Has it come to stay?
"By and large, yes", says the Freight Transport Association, adding that relations between operators and the Swansea booking centre and the test stations are on the whole good. Laid down test standards are reasonable and complaints of unreasonable interpretation, or variations of interpretation, are relatively few.
These are the main conclusions drawn from a survey which the Association has just published and as the result of which recommendations are being passed to the Department of the Environment.
The report is based on an analysis of 360 simple questionnaires answered by members of the FTA's area and divisional committees and other members. The replies related to experience in dealing with all but three of the main test stations, and of the 12 auxiliary stations not covered 10 were in Scotland. The total number of vehicles covered was 42,110, including fleet sizes from one to over 6000 vehicles, and all types from mobile workshops to bulk tankers.
Comments on the centralized booking procedure were generally favourable though many operators found the Swansea booking centre too remote and the time required (four weeks) to book a test too long. Direct booking between the operator and his local test station or local traffic area office would, it is said, solve these problems.
Many operators found the system too inflexible when trying to phase tests to avoid large portions of their fleets being off-the-road for testing at the same time. Complete flexibility of test dates within a maximum twelve-month period is therefore advocated.
Delays at test stations were a continuing problem, examples given ranging from 45 minutes to four hours. To combat this it is suggested that there should be less tolerance of late arrivals, telephone warning of foreseeable delays and staggered lunch hours to maintain vehicle flow.
Testing of the relatively few vehicles based permanently on the Scottish islands should cease, it is suggested. On a cost /benefit basis they contributed little to road safety.
With regard to the need to produce loaded vehicles for test, the report points out that the stipulation comes from Swansea. Sometimes, at the station manager's discretion, an arrangement is made to bring vehicles without loads. "Yet, surprisingly, 58 per cent of members are required to load vehicles before submitting them for test. The wide range of vehicles requiring to be loaded is also surprising. In addition to the expected types, tankers, bulk carriers and mobile shops, even platform vehicles and vans are required to be loaded. Even allowing for the fact that vehicles might not have been sufficiently described, this indicates that Swansea and some test stations are over zealous in requesting vehicles in a loaded condition." The report suggests that the DoE should review its instructions in this respect.
Another recommendation, in response to a plea from a large number of operators, is that test application forms should be simplified—particularly form VTG 40 (periodic test) as in this case Swansea already has information about the vehicle.
Although there were many allegations of varying standards between test stations, and indeed on different days or times at the same test stations, there was little concrete evidence provided. However, much comment was made on varying interpretation of Testers Manual tolerances laid down for shackles, kingpins, balljoints, etc. It was also evident that for many items such as looseness of bolts, small cracks i mirrors and discoloration of reflectors ther were widely varying interpretations of th standard required.
The general opinion is that the Tester Manual standards are reasonable enough properly applied. Unfortunately, the repol comments, if interpretation is appreciated s a serious problem this will be difficult t overcome, but it was suggested by seven operators that more practically experience staff could overcome a major part of th problem.
The Department should therefore, revieN its training and recruitment arrangemetth with a view to ensuring, so far as possible, good level of technical knowledge, an • common interpretation of standard amongst the testing station staff throughou the country. In addition it is alleged tha certain stations have their own "pet" item for thorough check. This over-fussiness wit] relative trivia is frustrating says the FTA and it also tends to let the scheme fall int disrepute for not always is the technicE officer or station manager available fo decision. Often, too, the over concentratio on minor non-mechanical items is couple' with a scant regard for major mechanic items.
This all adds up, the report concludes, t a continual need for staff training am measurement of standards throughout th network of testing stations.