The real battles are yet to start
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What will happen now that the Armitage Report says yes to 44 tonnes? Frank Tinsdale has a few ideas
HE INDUSTRY can expect the sual emotional outbursts from le various anti-lorry factions ow that Sir Arthur Armitage as recommended 44 tonnes, ome of the folk against heavy gries are absolutely genuine in )eir beliefs and there is true me t in the case they make for lirniitions on the use of goods ehicles on public roads. Others re genuinely misinformed and ould be converted by rational rgument, reasoning and iscussion.
The remainder include "Flat arthers" and the like and they till not change their point of iew in any circumstances. lowever, what is important is lat it is the general public who lust be influenced. So far, the -ansport lobby has done a very ioor job in convincing the perons in the street that their inerests will be better served if he road transport industry is 'ermined higher weights.
The heavy lorry is not popular Ind the industry should face up o the fact that for the vast najority of the great British pubic it will remain unpopular — 1 n less all concerned with )romoting road transport do ;omething about it!
Haulage contractors, transport )perators, vehicle and ancillary )quipment manufacturers, lealers, drivers, salesmen, nechanics, trade unions, em)loyers federations and the tarious associations connected rvith the motor industry, should lave been working together in ;oncert for years now stating the ;ase for what is the most effi;lent, most economical and -nost cost-effective method of -noving goods and passengers. rime and time again, discus
ions have been held to try to 3et joint action to combat the anti-lorry and pro-railway forces, Dut concerted action has never seen achieved although the principle has been agreed on numerous occasions.
Whenever joint action is proposed for a campaign to state the case for the heavy vehicle, arguments develop between the various bodies. In the end, nothing is done. The nationalised r'ailways, heavily in the red, are still consuming large sums of the taxpayers' money to finance advertising to try to force yet more cash out of the Government, and that means out of the public.
We have complaints loudly voiced from all sectors of the inefficiency of our railway system and its union-inspired restrictions and over-manning. What a marvellous climate in which to promote road transport, but advantage is not taken of these weaknesses.
It is time for the road transport industry in all its facets to organise itself not only in its own interests but in the interests of the country to let people really know just how much we all depend on the road vehicle. The various bodies, RHA, FTA, TGWU, SM MT, IRTE et al, should agree to put aside their differences long enough to agree on the simple fact that an efficient road transport industry would benefit not only those who earn their living directly through road transport but the whole population and the economy of the country. Can they not show the British public just how much of a part road transport plays in their daily lives and how much hardship would arise if all the lorries stopped running, even for just a few days?
Can they not prove that road transport is not the enemy of the railways or, indeed, of the environment? Can they not show that the industry is capable of facing up to the problems of today and overcoming them?
Showing a united front on at least the straightforward issue of the value of transport by road would do much to ensure rational debate of the various problems which the lorry causes and show the public that the industry does recognise these problems would create a better climate of opinion in which to discuss these important matters.
The road transport industry does not have a good image in the public eye nor has it had one for years now. The days when lorry drivers were looked upon as the "Knights of the Road" disappeared sometime back in the 1950s and I doubt if they will ever come back. However, a great deal could be done to educate the public and the authorities that heavy lorries are not designed specifically to frustrate the hapless car driver or demolish our pretty little country villages!
There is an educational job to be done and it is the road transport industry which must do it for no one else will. A few years ago, York Trailers very commendably campaigned on behalf of the whole industry. Their slogan, displayed on stickers on the back of their trailers, was "If you've got it, a truck brought it". York did not get the support they wanted from the rest of the industry. Why was it left to a trailer manufacturer to do something which should have been done long before by others more closely concerned?
Many vehicle manufacturers, and especially some of the importers, are currently spending large sums on advertising at a time when sales are at their lowest for many years anyway. Perhaps they can be prevailed upon to allocate just a fraction of their annual expenditure towards some total "industry" advertising.
Trade unions should surely provide a contribution if only because so many of their members depend on the industry and so many of them are currently unemployed. The Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association have a vested interest in the success of any campaign to promote roa( transport so surely they to( should be willing to contribute. believe the Society of Moto Manufacturers and Trader would co-operate.
The various bodies concerna directly or indirectly with roa transport could well afford to fir ance a professional advertisin and publicity campaign and the could run it too if, just for once they would forget their factiona differences in the interests of th whole industry. Formation of small, and I emphasise, a sma committee to inaugurate a canpaign to be handled by an advel tising agency is not beyond th capabilities of the interested pal ties and a well-organised, co-o dinated publicity programm carrying the full support of a concerned would play a signil cant part in changing publ opinion.
Probably, one would have 1 consider a highly intensive effo for the first 18 months followa by a lower-key, supportive can paign for a similar period. Tt costs, in total, would be high IT individually they would be relai vely modest and just think of tt rewards.
Once the public truly began 1 realise just how much thE needed the heavy lorry, rathl than just tolerated it, our ma ters in Whitehall would be cor pelled to accept that the model heavy commercial vehicle is powerful weapon in the econ mic armoury and not confounded nuisance that wor go away. Perhaps even the de sive term "juggernaut" wou be transposed into a term of e dearment.
Just because Sir Arthur Am tage has apparently gone alor with the proposed EEC ma: mum weight does not mean th all the battles have been won. fact, it may be that the rE battles are only just beginning'