Regulations for Lighter Motorbuses.
Page 1
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The new police regulations for motorbuses in the Metropolis have now been published they will be found on pages 7 to D. The decision to limit the unladen weight to three and a half tons is not inflexible, and this should satisfy the advocates of three and three-quarters or four tons; Regulation No. 8 allows the alternative, at the manufacturer's option, of a total laden weight of six tons, but, in the event of its being decided to submit a vehicle tinder the laden classification, the distribution of weight must be such that the maxima are four and two tons, respectively, for back and front axles. No exemption, apparently, is to be allowed to electric vehicles. The other fundamental change is found in Regulation No. 21, under which it is provided that any vehicle whose " highest " speed exceeds 12 m.p.h.----the word " normal " disappears—shall be fitted with an approved audible-warning device. We look upon this restriction as a most serious handicap, especially in view of the fact that the L.C.C. tramcars are allowed by the Board of Trade to travel at 16 m.p.h.-331 per cent. faster—along many highways where this speed will now, presumably, be enforced without latitude. Attention should also be drawn to the change in the terminology used at the head of page 1 of the notice: " for approval as to type" now reads " for consideration as to general suitability and fitness for public service in London."
The regulations, generally, are arranged, grouped and worded much better than were those of the 15th November, 1906, which are now superseded. The use of italics, by way of emphasis, has to be noted, and the general trend of the regulations, as compared with earlier sets, indicates a determination to secure rigid adherence to the letter of the text. A few other points only call for mention: No. 4, notification of all departures from design at time of approval of type ; No. 6, specification of route now applied to individual vehicles, in place of to owner ; No. 9h provision for maintenance of the 10 in. clearance below chassis to he " sufficient " in place of half-an-inch—liability to service of a stop-notice if it be found, subsequently to licensing, that the vehicle is " apt to skid or be otherwise improperly moved unduly "—soft or elastic tires specified, and sectional tires prohibited: No. 11, the same brake drum must not be used for two sets of brake blocks. and one brake must act on road wheels direct ; No. 12, no brake may declutch the engine ; No. 13, special tests. where vehicles are to ply on hilly routes, for brakes and other fittings; No. 16, steering-gear ball-joints must not have sockets on the underside; No. 30, exhaust pipe not to be led where oil can drop or splash upon it ; No. 38. the words " of sufficient size ' are 'stibstittited for the old definite measurements in respect of corner pillars; No. 42, range of height of lowest step from ground given; No., 43,
approved form of tread-plate required on steps; No. 47, guard-rails where side-windows are made to open; No. 49, re acetylene lighting, gives the illuminating instruction, " The pipes are to be led along the outside hut not along the outside of the roof " ; Nos. 53 to 55, destination indicators are made compulsory, and route boards, which must extend the full depth (front and rear) below the destination indicators, must show the approved points of route in geographical sequence according to the direction in tchirli the -vehicle is travelling ; No. 60, special pass or badge to be carried by any person authorized to travel beside a driver ; No. 61, no cans to be carried on driver's platform; No. 62, approved means to enable all passengers to communicate with driver or conductor.
The Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill.
At the Royal Automobile Club, on Thursday last, Mr. T. D. Berridge, M.P., who was largely responsible for the drafting of the Government's Road Bill, explained, with rather severe mien, how stupid journalists were generally, end particularly those on the Motor Press, in that they had misapprehended the phraseology employed by him in the clauses which concerned the construction of motor roads. We are content to know, as we last week surmised was probably the case, that no large scheme of new construction is contemplated, and that the " powers anent new motor roads will be incidental and altogether subservient to those which have relation to the improvement of existing roads." In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in welcoming the Bill as a whole, and we sincerely hope it will become law. The wording of the Bill, none the less, forecasts enormously-wide powers.
Speaking to Part II of the Bill, on Monday night last, in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular reference to the application of the yield from motor taxation, stated :—" That was a purely subsidiary, incidental, and supplementary part of the proposal. The policy of the Government, in which there had been no change since he made his Budget statement, was that the money should he used in the first instance to improve the present roads. . . He suggested that if roads were dangerously narrow they might be widened, if tortuous they should be straightened, and that there should be power of constructing absolutely new routes round villages. . . The proposals in regard to motor roads were proposals for the safety of the public. . . He agreed that the success of the administratiofi of the money would depend entirely upon the character of the members of the proposed committee. If they were to set up an irresponsible committee, the administration of the money might become an instrument of political corruption."
We have reason to believe that at least two members of the Road Board will be chosen to represent the views of motor users, and there is little doubt that the Royal Automobile. Club, the Motor Union, and the Commercial Motor Users' Association will be consulted in this connection.