AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Criticisms of A.R.O. Traffic Scheme

9th December 1939
Page 19
Page 19, 9th December 1939 — Criticisms of A.R.O. Traffic Scheme
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?

Keywords : Aro, Argeş County

THE following letter on the A.R.O. Traffic Scheme has been received from Mr. M. R. Bennett, a director of Richardson Transport Services, Ltd., London, S.E,15:— " I have just read your article and comments on T.M.E.O. (as you term the A.R.O.Traffic Scheme) with the greatest interest.

'I really cannot agree with your remarks on imitation. I doubt the originality of the scheme, but concede that it has been rushed into print ahead of the field, perhaps prematurely. The plan is a poor imitation of the existing clearing-house organization.

The promoters of T.M.E.O. propose to use the machinery of an association to set up a trading organization. This procedure is surely wrong and could be justified only by dire necessity and the 100 per cent, support of the members of the association. I find that many members have never been consulted as to the desirability of this enterprise and many do not approve of what they read. As yet I have seen no comment from the other national associations; can it be that they were not consulted? It is surely evident that this company is simply the tool of A.R.O., despite the gracious invitation now extended to non-members.

" I do agree that the ptomoters must elaborate detail to enable you to decide on the ultimate merits or otherwise of the scheme. I do agree that it will arouse opposition, particularly by clearing-houses, and I am now writing to prove your point.

" In your issue dated November 11, you published an excellent article under the heading, 'Would a National Clearing House Solve to-day's Road Transport Problems.' I think that the existing clearing-house organization, suitably adapted, could indeed do that very thing. For that reason alone, I contend that T.M.E.O. is unnecessary. cannot, of course, anticipate the official statement that will be issued by Mr. Palmer in due course. I can, however, assure you that, as a body, the clearing-house organization is ready and anxious to play its part in assisting the Government. I would also point out that our outlook is entirely national and that we are not bound to any one clique or section of professional hauliers.

" In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the very sane editorial policy that you have adopted. It is indeed high time the leaders of our industry concentrated on our interests. The railway companies are only too able to look after themselves; we should strive to make ourselves equally competent. The motto of the industry should be " The roads are ours, we must be allowed to use them.' "

[We thank Mr. Bennett for his interesting comments, both on the T.M.E.O. and regarding our editorial policy, and we admit that it is difficult to hold the balance between interests which are so often directly opposed. So far as the T.M.E.O. is concerned, there is, apparently, nothing to prevent established clearing-houses joining this organization, as it has been thrown open to all comers, and has actually been approved by a number of members of, for example, the C.M.U.A. (subject to any final form which it may take). It is, in our opinion, hardly fair to , call it a tool of the A.R.O. As to it being rushed into print, surely it is better to get something on the way than to devise schemes and keep them under cover—at least, publication does give the opportunity, such as this, for suggestions, useful or otherwise, to be criticized so that something practical may result. The difference between the T3VI.E.O. and any system which could be propounded by a group of clearing-houses is that, in the first case, it is the members who join who will benefit by any surplus after deduction of working expenses, whereas the clearing-houses would automatically take the whole percentage charged for their services, and necessarily work with the idea of making a profit for themselves. From what we know of the Government's views, it is more inclined to favour a co-operative scheme where the hauliers concerned may reap some benefit.—ED.]

Tags

Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus