A Significant Difference
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Hanlon refuted this submission. The normal user defined operation as within 20 miles of the London base, 'mainly for the collection and deliveiy of rail-borne traffic." This, the Licensing Authority said, covered the temporary use of a vehicle in another area. He failed to observe, however, that the radius from the named place was absolute, whereas it was in the type of traffic handled that some flexibility was allowed. On a strict interpretation it is difficult to understand how he could defend the movement in the unequivocal terms he used, although it may have been justified on the ground of administrative convenience.
It is now for the Road Haulage Association to ensure that Mr. Hanlon adopts a similarly liberal policy towards hauliers. British Road Services and free-enterprise operators in other areas have been reprimanded by Licensing Authorities and have placed their licences in jeopardy for doing the thing that Mr. Hanlon condones. There cannot be one law for British Railways and another for road operators, or one in the Northern Area and another elsewhere. It is to be hoped that the present case will be taken to appeal to test the validity of the arguments employed in it.