'Operators are caught in the Act'
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I have read the article by Brian H. Fish (CM January 19) with interest and am moved to make some comments on his suggestions for making the Act more effective.
My own interest in the subject is mainly servicing and maintenance and I would like to comment on this aspect first.
The point in regard to windscreen washers is that these must obviously provide a higher degree of safety when the washers are functioning, particularly when it is not raining hard and the screens are only damp or again when mud is thrown up from the vehicles in front. In these circumstances the wiper will not produce an optically clear screen. The driver is at risk when he is peering through a partially clear screen, especially in fog or half-light.
Apart from safety, a wiper working on a dirty screen will cause rapid wear of the rubbing strip and uneven and jerky movement of the wiper; also possibly a scratched windscreen.
There are many other requirements which may also appear to be of minor importance, but when these are met add significantly to the degree of safety.
Mr Fish argues that the maintenance requirements must be more stringent than those pertaining to private cars. I cannot agree with his outlook on this and strongly recommend that every vehicle using the roads should be. as Mr Fish says, "in mint condition". I consider that this is a most important overall requirement which must be met in all-out effort to reduce the appalling number of road accidents taking place at the present time.
Another and probably no less important requirement is that the driver must be in good health, and one method of ensuring this is to limit his working hours. A tired driver cannot exercise the same degree of control and cannot always make the right decisions; a tired driver tends to become more aggressive and takes undue risks.
When the introduction of the tachograph is made mandatory in a few years' time, the problem of keeping a check on drivers' hours will be made easier.
In regard to both the above requirements, viz maintenance and drivers' hours, Mr Fish should remember that in the operator's Licence he declares that he will fulfil some statements of intention which include both those mentioned above and it is his responsibility to ensure that the requirements are met.
The Licensing Authority cannot of course check that every operator is indeed working to the rules but can only check by sample inspections or by follow-up from convictions in magistrates' courts. In view of the many unscrupulous operators in the field at this time he cannot at present have his powers reduced tc regulatory functions and must continue tc exercise actions which will prove a deterren1 to the non-conformers.
I have noted press reports of court caseE and statistically the numbers appear to attraci roughly equal cases of inspection and main• tenance and excessive drivers' hours. I have also attended many LA courts as an interestec spectator and I find that the LAs are very fail and reasonable in dealing with offenders ant their findings usually reflect the gravity of the case.
The fact that compliance with the regulations must inevitably increase the cost o. operations must be faced and accepted ever if it only helps to reduce the staggering cost o. accidents and suffering of the people con cerned. It should be remembered, however that a high technical standard of vehicle and a well-trained driver will result in a more efficient operation of his vehicle which caul( offset the aforesaid increases.
Summing up, I consider that the law adequate as it stands provided that the operator "plays the game" and does no attempt evasion of the rules which he ha; already agreed to accept when he signed the application for his operator's licence.
H. J. WEBB, B SC(Eng) Cleve don, Somerse