Gloves 0
Page 39
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Government's ready acceptance of Lord Lucas of Chilworth's amendment to the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill, aimed at increasing the powers of local authorities to. ban loading and unloading by goods vehicles, is surprising and disturbing. It is surprising because Lord Lucas said he was well aware of the " terrific " problems that long periods of prohibition would entail and he would therefore not press his motion. Even though he was presented with this easy line of escape, Lord Chesham, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, accepted the new clause, subject only to further examination of its drafting. The principle was freely admitted.
Lord Lucas thought that the existing power of local authorities to ban loading and unloading for periods up to six hours in 24 was totally inadequate to deal with the problem of congestion. Most councils had, he said, come to. the conclusion that it must be prohibited throughout the day on certain roads, otherwise peaks of congestion were built up during the limited periods of free access to premises.
The unequivocal terms of Lord Chesham's concurrence deserve note: "I do not dissent from anything he [Lord Lucas] said," he declared. "He is right. The solution to this problem demands a degree of sacrifice on the part of all concerned. . .. I would agree that the local authorities should have this power. It is a major change . . • and perhaps the best way may be through consultation with the interests concerned."
It would appear that the work done by the Traders' Road Transport Association and others in trying to educate Parliament and local authorities in the importance of reasonable freedom to collect and deliver goods has been in vain. The T.R.T.A. would be the first to agree that "a degree of sacrifice on the part of all concerned" is necessary in relieving congestion. After all, they co-operated fully in the successful working of the "pink zone" in London and their members made sacrifices in doing so. They launched the "Kerb Space is Precious" campaign, designed to inculcate into ,traders and operators a sense of urgency in dealing with collections and deliveries.
No Equal Sacrifice
But the idea of forbidding loading and unloading in a commercial area throughout the day is preposterous. It would not spread the inconvenience over all concerned. It would merely concentrate it on local traders and those supplying them for the sake of easy movement of through traffic.
Clearways are an excellent means for preventing dangerous obstruction on busy main roads where traffic moves fairly rapidly. They are totally unsuitable for application to shopping streets and other centres of trade, the continued existence of which depends on reasonable freedom in the movement of goods. To compel all collections and deliveries to be made at night would impose an intolerable burden on traders and on transport operators, including, notably, the railways, who are the biggest commercial-vehicle users in the country. Apart from the high cost of night work, it would in many cases be impossible to find the staff to do it.
It is not clear at what stage the "consultation with the interests concerned," mentioned by Lord Chesham, would take place. Whenever it occurs, the T.R.T.A. and other trade bodies will be fully justified in refusing voluntary co-operation. They have already done all that can be expected of them. The time has come for them to state in plain terms that they will accept no further encroachment on the right of the individual to receive and send goods at reasonable times of the day.
A Savage Penalty
Wl-tEN the usual post-mortem examination on the Lorry Driver of the Year Competition takes place after the final in September, careful consideration must be given to the new ruling under which contestants who exceed the time allowed for a manceuvring test are penalized 100 marks in excess of the worst performance in the class. It has created greater hostility than any other regulation, and if it is perpetuated next year it may harm the competition. .
By taking only a second longer than the arbitrary maximum stipulated time in performing a test perfectly, a driver incurs such heavy penalty marks that he appears on paper to be completely incompetent. Any employer who., observed the marking without understanding the reason might well receive a most unfavourable impression of the man's capabilities. Indeed, several competitors who have been penalized in this way have expressed fears about the reaction of their employers. A straight penalty of, say, 50 marks would adequately recognize a slow performance without completely demolishing a driver's chances of earning a place in his class It is quite illogical to place so much emphasis on time when drivers of big vehicles who leave the controls to look out of the near-side door while reversing are allowed to do so with impunity. This is a practice which, under paragraph 8 of the national regulations, might well be regarded as dangerous or careless driving, meriting disqualification. In fact, it is generally condoned.