1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154 
Is a Container an Alternative Body ?
Page 69
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AA CCORDING to a recent decision of the High .1,.Court, in Scotland, a lorry which, at infrequent intervals, carries a container, such as a cattle float, does not qualify for a higher rate of taxation, even if the superimposed body raises it from one licensing class to another. This decision was given on the facts of the case.
Under Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the weight of a vehicle "shall be taken to be the weight . . inclusive of the body and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of . . loose equipment."
In our opinion, a container or float cannot reasonably be construed as an " alternative" body, because it does not replace the platform, but is merely superimposed upon it. The vehicle can normally be used without the container, which might well be regarded as packing. On the other hand, a container might also be classed as "loose equipment," because it is not essential to the operation of the vehicle; rather, is it a loading facility. In the case of Darling v. Burton, it was held that removable shelves in a baker's van were "loose equipment" and were not to be included as unladen weight. On this precedent, it seems reasonable to regard as "loose equipment" a container, because it is as much a facility for loading as is a series of shelves, and is almost as easily removed. We do not know whether, in the present case, the Court accepted this view, but it certainly adopted the attitude that occasional use of a container does not necessitate the payment of higher taxation. The uncertainty created by the broad terms in which Section 26 of the 1930 Act is couched should be remedied by defining, in an amending Act, a container as "loose equipment," or amongst the items excluded in computing unladen weight.
Municipal TransPort Enterprise WITHIN the limits imposed by financial considerations, no municipal authorities in the world do more than those of this country in promoting the efficiency and economy of their services, particularly in respect of their transport arrangements and public cleansing. On many occasions we have had the pleasure of meeting the majority of the transport managers and cleansing superintendents, and we have found them, both individually and collectively, keenly alive to the importance of the work they carry out, always appreciative of suggestions as to its improvement, and eager for a high degree of cooperation, leading to freedom in the circulation of views on methods and means. . In addition to what may be termed "routine work," many of these officials conduct experiments with new vehicles and devices, for which they can provide facilities not always available to the ordinary operator, the results often becoming generally available through the medium of informative papers read at the various conferences, which constitute a feature of their business curriculum. It is quite probable, for example, that the oil engine would not have made the progress it has without the assistance of the transport managers.
Maintenance Must Be Improved TRENCHANT comments on the general condition of goods vehicles may be expected in the Licensing Authorities' First Annual Reports, which are to be published shortly, if present indications be reliable. On a number of occasions the Authorities have had to bring to the notice of applicants the mechanical state of their machines, and it has been necessary in far too many instandes for examiners to serve prohibition notices on operators. Some carriers appear to have been quite aggrieved when rebuked, because, as they explained, they had always repaired vehicles to the satisfaction of the examiners, when they were placed under prohibition! This unenlightened view of the need for maintenance is bound up with ignorance of costing generally. The goods side of the industry is repeating the experience of small passengervehicle operators in the early days of the administration of the 1930 Act.