FANATICS HAVE REACHED THE LIMIT
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT was encouraging to me to note in "The Commercial 'Motor " dated July 18 that at least two of your readers agree with my original suggestions that the time has come to show the fanatical ideologists that there is a limit to what the British people will put up with when it comes to bureaucratic dictatorship and the abuse of our centuries-old Parliamentary ' procedure.
We are still on the respectable side of the iron curtain and are not willing to permit here the type of politics employed in the Balkans, The House of Lords has done the best it -could and endeavoured to take the worst of the thorns out of the bush, but the fact remains that the Transport Bill is absolutely contrary to the desire of the great majcrity of the people of this country. It will, I am convinced, cause 'Chaos in the industry, the loss of thousands of hauliers' businesses and jobs, resulting in a huge increase -in haulage costs, serious delays in the delivery Of 'goods, and a further big load on the longsuffering taxpayers---and all to what end? Just to gratify the whims of a small collection of people who put futile theories before the country's interests and requirements.
Leeds. FRUSTRATED.
" MANCEUVRE. FOR THE KNOCK-OUT BLOW"
Lords have done their best with the Transport Bill and have earned the gratitude of all hauliers, but the position now seems to be "as you were." I would like to see a stoppage of vehicles until the Bill was abandoned.
Ihave in mind the sentence in the leader entitled "Farce Without Comedy" ("The Commercial Motor," May 16), which read, "The time has come for all engaged in opposition to the nationalization of inland transport to maneeuvre for the knock-out blow."
hope that the policy of your journal will allow you to give your haulier readers the starting orders for the manceuvre for the knock-out blow, that will save our industry from bureaucracy, and this country from the greatly magnified mismanagement of a "bigger and better" Ministry of War Transport.
Lancaster. SMALL HAULIER.
CAN NATIONALIZATION BE BOYCOTTED?
WHILST I recognize the emotion surging in the breast " of Mr. F. Parkin, of Eccles (" The Commercial Motor," July 18), he has let emotion cloud his judgment. For their own sakes, I hope none of your small independent haulier readers will be stupid enough to follow him and " strike " against the Transport Bill when it becomes an Act.
A general strike of Britain's internal transport, even for one day as a demonstration, is so unlikely even to
begin that its ultimate effect need not seriously be debated. A large volume of the country's tonnage moves by rail. Railways are under Government control, and will be released from that control only to go into direct national ownership. Even were that not so, railway staff and labour unions (affiliated to the T.U.C.) will hardly strike against a Government they worked to elect, and in which many of their leading men serve.
Most lorries work under C licences, and the biggest single owners of haulage vehicles are the railways. In the passenger field, would the big municipal enterprises strike on this question, or, indeed, the big combines? With railways. canals, ancillary users' lorries, and a material part of the hauliers' vehicles in full operation, plus temporary permission to ancillary vehicles to carry for all and sundry, what is the value of the gesture Mr. Parkin proposes?
London, W.8. JAMES A. DUNNAGE.
ARTICULATED BUSES USED IN BRITAIN
lyirrm regard to the footnote to a letter entitled "Why Tv Not Semi-trailer Buses in Britain?" (" The Commercial Motor," July 18), I would like to draw attention to the fact that in July, 1942, two articulated buses were put into use by Mansfield District Traction Co., Ltd.
The vehicles were built to war-time standards. and the tractors were Commers fitted with Perkins oil engines. The semi-trailers were by the British Trailer Co., Ltd, and the bodies by Metropolitan-Cammell-Weymatin Motor Bodies, Ltd. Each vehicle had a turning circle of 45 ft., and had seats for 40 passengers. The front part of the trailer portion was equipped with a clerestory roof to increase headroom, as the frame was raised at this point. The total weight of each bus was 5i tons.
Beckenham. E. K. POYNTER.
OLDHAM BUSES NOT THE FIRST "EIGHT-FOOTERS"
A REPORT in "The Commercial Motor" dated July r-k 18 gives the impression that bodies supplied by Charles H. Roe, Ltd., to Oldham Corporation were the first of the 8-ft, wide variety to go into service in this country. This statement needs qualification. My company was responsible for building a number of bodies 8 ft. wide, all of which were destined for overseas, but were directed for operation in this country in the early part of the war by the Ministry of Transport.
There were 71 of these bodies and, as far as we know to the contrary, they are still in service in London, Birmingham, South Wales, the Potteries, Nottingham and
Bradford. W. C. S. CHATFIELD,
London, S.W.1. Sales Manager, Metropolitan-Cammell-Weymann Motor Bodies, Ltd.
FOR WHOM ARE OUR LEADING ARTICLES INTENDED?
WITH reference to your article "The Years or " Depression," published in your issue dated May 30, for whom does your leader writer write—intelligent men or the average transport contractor?
Farncombe, Surrey. D. K. LOGAN.
[The leaders in this journal are written for all readers, although the road transport industry is such a vast one that some may appeal more at one time to one class, and at another to a different section. Candidly, we do not like the innuendo in Mr. Logan's note that the average transport contractor is not intelligent. To have been successful in this business has, in most cases, required a fairly high standard of commonsense, apart from a considerable amount of specialized knowledge—in fact, the average intelligence compares favourably with that of men in any other commercial enterprise,—Eol