The Failure to Impose Import Duties on . Commercial Motors.
Page 1
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TT is a grievous pity that the fiscal question of import duty on motor vehicles should be the Shuttlecock of political parties. It is not a party question at all, yet the Labour Government (with a sad inconsequence i) removed the McKenna Duties when it entered into power, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Conservative Government has in less than a year reinstated them, and Mr. Phillip Snowden, iq the debate on the Budget, affirmed the intention of the next Labour Goverii-. ment to remove them again so soon as it recovered the power so to do. No industry except those affected by the McKenna duties is subjected to such treatment rendering its position perpetually Insecure.
That is our first protest in the matter of the renewal of the McKenna Duties as from July 1st next. What, however, calls for severe criticism is the failure of the Chancellor to take the opportunity now presented of giving a measure of pro_ tection to the commercial vehicle manufacturing industry and the tyre industry of this country. It has been pointed out that we are quite capable of producing all the vehicles required and of a suitable character—a fact which foreign manufacturers would unstintingly concede. The number of vehicles in the category which is imported each year is not very large, but it is sufficient to reduce to a material extent the amount of employment that could be given to our workers. In fact, few people realize the effect which the withdrawal of the McKenna Duties had upon employment. We know of one foundry not 20 miles from London which was casting bodies for axle jacks. When the duties were withdrawn orders for the castings immediately ceased, the complete jacks being again imported as they had been before the duties were imposed, and the firm had to dismiss ten men who had been. casting the parts. Curiously enough, the workers themselves could not see the association of cause and effect The original reason for the imposition of the duties, in 1915, was the need for avoiding the use of tonnage in the importation of _luxury. articles, and of products which could be manufactured here and to avoid the exportation of moneys or goods in payment therefor. The reimposition of the duties now is obviously a measure of protection, and, that being so, it should be complete, and should cover all categories and classes amongst motor .imports.
What is a Proper Depreciation Period ?
THE question of the right period over which allowances for depreciation of a commercial motor vehicle should be spread is often up for discussion, and it has been a very live subject since the evening recently when the Editor of this journal read a paper on the subject of commercial motors before the Institution of Engineers-inCharge when the depreciation period formed one of the matters dealt with. In The Commercial Motor's tables of running costs a period of seven years is taken, not because that is the expectation of life of a commercial motor regarded from the point of view of a fleet manager, but because accountants and auditors regard it as a safe basis to work upon. We have for some time felt that the commercial motor has reached apoint in development and production where the better selection of metals, materials and methods has brought about such a result that ten years should be taken as the depreciation period. No one, to take an example, would to-day regard a 1917 vehicle (excluding from the argument the possibility that wartime materials were bat of the best) as only fit for the scrap-heap. As a fact, many vehicles dating back to 1913, 1912, 1910 and even earlier are still running economically and giving good service. The point is of practical importance because, If a lower depreciation figure may be taken, a lower figure could be quoted for transport, and the commercial motor would compare even more favourably than it does, in given cases, with transport by any other means. However, the subject is one which calls for open discussion, and we would welcome for publication in our columns letters from our readers who are desirous of discussing the matter.
The Low-load-line Passenger Vehicle.
THE MODERN tendency is all towards the development of passenger vehicles having a much lower platform than those formerly built. A typical example of such development is the N.S.type bus built for the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., but progress is being made with other types, particularly for saloon and open coaches. Very satisfactory forms of chassis with low frames are already on the market, and those users who have standard chassis to which they wish to fit coach bodies having low platfomis can be accommodated by such devices as that which we described in our last issue. In, it cross-bearers for the body are accommodated under the seats, and the body is so suspended from these that the floor proper practically rests on the frame of the chassis, only an insulating medium, about in. thick, being interposed. By this means the floor height is reduced by 3 ins. or 4 ins. and, consequently, the step height is reduced, and ingress and egress are greatly facilitated. At one time it was considered essential to build a coach high, so that passengers could see over hedges and thus view the surrounding country, but in many eases hedges have now been reduced in height and the speed of coaches, particularly on the new arterial roads, has been so increased that it is more important to reduce the centre of gravity, as this gives a much safer vehicle and one not so liable to roll or skid.
A Broken Mudguard and a Public Danger.
RUNNING on a route from south-east to north1.0deast of London, we recently saw a bus which had its near-side front mudguard, made of wood, badly splintered -on its leading edge, with pieces missing that leftthree sharp spikes thrusting out. The mudguard had obviously been damaged in a mild collision, something which had not involved any material loss. Three days later, however, we saw the same bus with its mudguard in the same condition, and then we realized that the proprietors of the bus were not alive to their duties to the public. A mudguard in that state was potential of great evil, for if the sharp, spiked ends of the splinters caught the clothing of a pedestrian hurrying across (as pedestrians do in London I) in front of the bus, leaving little or no margin, he would be arrested in his passage and be pulled directly under the front wheel. This is a matter for the Public Carriage Department of Scotland Yard. The Department will serve a notice upon the proprietor of a bus which is noisy, the effect of which is at once to take the vehicle off the streets until the defect has been remedied: but, whereas noise merely irritates, a broken mudguard may result in the death of a pedestrian. In our opinion, the police should order off the streets any vehicle seen to be in the condition such as we have described.