AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Harder Nut to Crack

9th September 1960
Page 95
Page 95, 9th September 1960 — A Harder Nut to Crack
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?

REFERRING to "Smoke Signals in your issue of

August 12, I cannot agree that it is as easy to obtain licences in South Wales as in the Western Area, even when Mr. T. D. Come conducts the case. We are all well aware of his ability in the traffic courts, and particularly in the preparation before the hearing. Further, it is not new for Mr. Corpe to appear in the South Wales traffic courts, as I think I was one of the first hauliers to engage him, in 1947, when he was successful in a rather ambitious application.

Many of your readers are already aware of the A licences that have been granted, on the production of figures only, to Western Area operators to carry steel, and I very much doubt whether Mr. Idris Owen, South Wales Licensing Authority, would make a similar grant, even if Mr. Corpe conducted the case. Mr. Corpe has of late successfully taken a number of cases for South Wales operators, but I understand that there were plenty of supporting witnesses, and the earnings of the vehicles submitted to the Licensing Authority were far in excess of those of any Western Area operator.

Tr i ley Bridge. J. M. WATK INS.

Laws Enough on Smoking

READING a Parliamentary report in The Commercial Motor, I was amused, and then annoyed, about the comment on the emission of smoke by diesel-engined vehicles. How stupid can our so-called leaders, law-makers and enforcers be? There are laws enough and to spare if they are enforced properly and without bias. There is already one relating to excess smoke.

When I was travelling by car I noticed a Governmentowned vehicle ahead belching thick black smoke, which caused a line of traffic to fall behind it, as the road was completely obscured. I eventually overtook it, and, pulling up near a police patrol, suggested that he should do something about it. He said: "You cannot do a thing about these big vehicles."

I replied that he could and would if the vehicle had been owned by a private concern, because the driver of one of our own vehicles had been warned by a patrol when it had just come back from the makers' service depot for replacement injectors.

Take a look at cars—often quite new—and motorcycles, but how often do you hear of a fine for excessive smoke? Buses are prime offenders.

Yeovil. NORA, JEANS. [Bus operators may care to defend themselves against this charge.—En.]

Mr. Jolliffe Unfair to R.H.A.

WITH reference to the report headed, "Mr. Jolliffe Criticizes R.H.A.: 'Tell Members to Give Proper Figures ' " (The Commercial Motor, August 26), I would like to point out, so far as licensing matters are concerned, the service provided by the North Western (Western) Area of the Road Haulage Association for members is essentially advisory, and even the wisest advice is often disregarded or misinterpreted.

While the Association does its best to advise members regarding the production of the necessary figures and information, it cannot itself produce them; this must be left to the applicant and his accountant. In the case which provoked Mr. Jolliffe's comments the Association had, in fact, done everything that it could reasonably be expected to do.

Your readers will, no doubt, sympathize with my feeling that what seems to have been a publicly expressed general criticism of this Association's advisory service to its members ought not to have been made solely because of the manner of presentation of a particular application to the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority.

London, W.1. G. K. NEWMAN

Chief Executive Officer, Road Haulage Association.

What "The Hawk" Didn't See

IN his comment (August 12) on a traffic survey reported I in the Observer, "The Hawk" seems to have missed one small fact. The conductors of the survey were reported to have " booked " a vehicle only when some fault was committed. Thus it was not a survey of driving by classes. It was more of a survey of the prevalence of certain types of driving fault among the more irresponsible (?) drivers in each of the classes into which the traffic was subdivided.

Durham. R. H. MOOR.

Loans to Employees_ Are Bad

MAY I point out to " Trunkie " (The Commercial Motor, September 2) that hire-purchase companies are understanding in cases of genuine hardship, and in many instances will cancel an outstanding debt. Some banks also operate a " personal-loan " scheme and, judging from what I read in the newspapers, it is easier for anyone to obtain such a loan than for a man with an established business to get an overdraft.

I fail to understand why " Trunkie " should blame the employer more than the employee, because, according to him, the employer was never at any time approached for a loan. The driver in the instance quoted was on a good thing if he had got away with it—no principal or interest to repay and someone else to stand the loss.

Loans to employees result in one of two things: (1) The employee concerned leaves after a month or so, in which case the employer has to put his ex-employee in court to recover the debt; or (2) the employee makes overtime in order to pay off the debt.

I am no cynic. After all, I started at the bottom and am by no means at the top of the:ladder, but I have always lived within my income. However, I do notice that the "little chaps" mentioned by " Trunkie " are wise to every fiddle under the sun and at the same time are the first to protest if anything affects them personally.

So far as security goes, to give a stranger the keys of a vehicle is dishonest, and no amount of instructions will prevent a driver doing a trick like that if he is so minded. Any driver convicted of theft in the course of his employment should have his licence endorsed with the fact.

Neston, Cheshire. STEPHEN M USTELL.


comments powered by Disqus