You are in: > Contact Us > Letters
You are in: > Contact Us > Letters
Some letters that appear on this page have previously been published in, and submitted to, Commercial Motor. Although we do not publish anonymous letters, names can be withheld for publication. Commercial Motor and Roadtransport.com reserve the right to edit letters.
All letters should be submitted to Commercial Motor news editor Christopher Walton, either via email to christopher.walton@rbi.co.uk or in writing to Commercial Motor, Quadrant House, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS.
No excuse for dangerous habit of pulling in early
As an HGV driver in the UK, I am horrified to see drivers putting their lives and others under any undue risk. I refer, of course, to the (bad) habit of cutting in too soon after overtaking.
It seems to be a sport to see how close one can get to the other vehicle when returning to the same lane. Perhaps they are trying to get windscreen wipers or paint samples from them? Whatever they are doing, it is very dangerous.
And the matter is made even worse by some idiotic drivers who, on an empty dual carriageway, with nothing behind them, pull in with scant regard for anyone's safety. Why?
Most, after pulling in, force me to brake to maintain a safe distance. This can have a knock-on effect on the vehicles behind me. Why do they do it? We have come to expect poor standards from some car drivers, but professional drivers should know and behave better.
The only excuse for pulling in without giving reasonable distance - or giving consideration - to the slower vehicle is if an emergency vehicle is trying to make progress to an incident.
Otherwise, the distance before pulling in should be at least 15 metres - this is the typical thinking distance at 50mph.
In the case of a 44-tonne truck, this equates to little over one vehicle length. THis would give the driver of the second truck time to consider taking some evasive action if needed.
At present, with lorries of all different sizes and weights pulling in as soon as they clear the slower lorry or car, it is very dangerous.
If, after completing the overtaking manoevre, an air line fractures or some other kind of mechanical breakdown occurs, the vehicle behind has nowhere to go. The outcome is a serious accident, one which could kill or even maim the offending driver from the overtaking vehicle if he is shunted into other traffic or an obstruction.
It could also lead to an action being taken by the police for dangerous driving and/or driving without due care and attention.
In the past, it was normal for lorry drivers to 'flash' each other in, although this is not lawful.
I no longer fully this habit because hardly any of my fellow truck drivers give me adequate distance to warrant doing so. We are quick to criticise foreign drivers, but perhaps we should take a look at our own bad driving first.
My message to other drivers is: Overtaking? Give me some space before pulling in.
Clive Cargill
Via email
A word from the RHA on drivers' hours
The article that appeared in CM recently called "Going Dutch" asserts that Dutch drivers are permitted by regulations to drive for up to 70 hours per week (5 November).
I would like to reassure the readers of CM that this is, in fact, completely incorrect.
The Dutch are covered by EU Regulation 561/2006 on drivers' hours just like everyone else is.
The 70 figure is part of the union's bargaining position on pay and conditions, which, in the Dutch haulage industry, are covered by a collective agreement that this has been negotiated at national level.
Many readers will doubtless have their own views and opinions as to how many hours some Dutch drivers are spending behind the wheel - but that is a very different matter from what they are actually permitted to do by law.
Jack Semple
Director of policy
Road Haulage Association
Via email
We are drowning under a tidal wave of rules and regulations
The new conspicuity regulations are the last straw for me (CM 24 September). The last morsel of respect I have for the rule-makers for our industry has now gone.
I see 'they' (Paul Clark - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport) are now talking about deferring the introduction of these regulations because of the cost to the industry. Have 'they' gone completely insane? The cost of a few stickers is infinitesimal on the price of a new truck.
What really gets me is the total lack of thought that is behind this. In the past, we have had extra lights and reflectors added, fair enough, but now we have to have reflective stickers to show the outline. How far away do you need to be able to see the side of a truck, the next county? The motorway at night is going to be ablaze with lights! You probably won't notice the cars and what chance have motorbikes got?
What about the real 'knights of the road' that have been so completely ignored. The best people in this industry. The people that have pride in their work and the trucks they drive! How's 'Captain Scarlet' or the 'Lord of the Rings' going to look with a bloody great reflective stripe through the middle of them? I spoke to one such driver, after admiring his truck, the other day. He said, f*** that, they're not going on.
And the Road Haulage Association says it's too small an issue to get involved in. How pompous. Like its doing other things!
What about a bigger issue like priority for trucks leaving service areas? Or is that too small, too? What about the first 18-year-old to kill a family when he rolls his truck onto them at a roundabout because he's playing boy racer. That must also be too small. The reduced age limited happened in the blink of an eye because the industry will be desperate for drivers in a few years, and it is taking desperate measures to recruit them. Methods commonly used in other industries are not the way (ie. training/ youth opportunities). I don't know many people that wanted to be career-drivers. I got my licence in 1984 because I heard you could earn £500 per week driving to Italy (plus c'est change).
Others I know drove to finance studies or wanted to pay their mortgage off in five or 10 years.
Create an industry where you can earn £1,000 per week driving (eg. minimum haulage rate) and employers will be able pick the 'wheat from the chaff' and pride and professionalism will be restored naturally. Instead, they are being imposed on us through the Driver CPC (The Emperor's New Clothes) and more oppressive rules and regulations than you can shake a stick at.
John English
Via email
PS. Why isn't the letters page bigger? Do you only get two a week?
Ed's note: We get many more letters than just two a week John. If readers have an appetite for more letters and opinions please get in touch and let me know.
Drivers do us proud
I am writing to thank all truckers who showed fantastic professionalism while I was riding alone on my bicycle on a charity ride from John O'Groats to Lands End between 15 September and 25 September.
I am sure cyclists are not your drivers favourite roadusers, but my 873-mile ride on all the A-roads left me with admiration for truckers as they waited to pass me, did not hassle me and did not make me feel vulnerable. There was no incident from a truck driver, but I was clipped once by a car driver.
I am a police inspector with Surrey Police. I only tell you that to give some credibility to my assessment of the driving professionalism of your truckers because I have seen the result of many incidents of bad driving.
Your truckers made my ride a very pleasant memorable experience.
Thank you.
Richard Bridgman
Via email
Safety issue: Agricultural vehicles should be transported on loaders
I was interested to read Adrian Beadnell's comments regarding the double standards employed over the farming community compared with the transport industry ('Tractor drivers - one rule of the road for them and another for us?'; CM 17 September).
Although modern farm trailers have become larger and stronger, and the tractors more powerful, I still see them primarily unsafe for the road when carrying goods.
The design changes may appear to make them more suitable for roads, although I do have my doubts, but it's worth remembering that not every farmer has the same level of new or modern equipment.
Although modern equipment may have more speed and power, I still question their tyre suitability as they dodge and bounce on roads in an uncontrolled fashion.
I would not even begin to comment on axle loadings or their general design as road vehicles, including the steering.
Perhaps VOSA would like to introduce a few random checks to see how they match up to our stringent regulations. Sorry, I forgot, they do not need an O-licence, which ridicules its whole existence when it comes to safety and hours worked, so I presume this isn't a VOSA matter.
It is not only load-carrying vehicles that appear to be unsuitable. I also question combines and towing equipment, which flaunt road safety rules regarding tyres, lights, width, attachments and stability.
Beadnell did raise an interesting point regarding "grey fergie" and moving from field to field, which hits the nail on the head.
Previously, goods were moved off the field, but now we're seeing tractors used as an alternative to road transport, but without all the rules and costs.
The reason for such relaxed regulations and concessions to the farming industry, including the use of red diesel, was because the core of their business was off-road, with tractors only moving from one field to another, or back to the farmyard, and using the country lanes, which is their domain, and is something road transport should respect.
With large groups of farms under single ownership or agricultural contractors covering large areas, we now have items being used or transported on major roads, often bringing traffic to a standstill, which would not be tolerated if it had not been created by road transport.
For safety reasons, the majority of farming equipment and machinery should not be used on major roads, but transported by low loaders under the rules of our industry.
Carl Stephens
Pelham Truck Hire
Immingham
I was interested in the road test on the new Iveco Stralis (CM 27 August). I was particularly pleased to read the glowing report by your tester, Brian Weatherley, who heaped praise aplenty on it.
So imagine my disappointment when I read L Radley's column (CM 8 October) rubbishing the same vehicle.
Come on guys, who are we to believe? In just a few weeks, the Iveco went from being the best thing since sliced bread to a total pig - in the same magazine. I am tempted to side with Radley since she spent a week with the truck in a working environment.
Weatherley finished his report saying: "We'd be surprised if after a day behind the wheel dirvers weren't won over." Unfortunately, his colleague didn't agree, and said so in no uncertain terms.
Mark Robinson
Via email
Saying goodbye to Rod Abrahams, who had road transport in the blood
A special freind and colleague passed away on 28 September after battling cancer for almost two years. Rod Abrahams' funeral took place on 5 October and was attended by more than 200 of his family, friends and transport industry colleagues.
Road transport was always in Rod's blood. He first became a driver alongside his father, then, due to his ability to manage people, he worked his way up through the ranks and, in 1980, achieved a managerial position in TNT at its Luton depot.
Rod's leadership skills helped him to quickly increase the level of business at the depot, after which he was promoted to the position of national operations manager. THis is when I first met Rod, who became my boss in 1982. Along with his promotion, his new responsibilities included the launch of what was then the most technically advanced automated hub in the UK.
Rod's abilities were further recognised, and he was promoted to manage the operational needs of Target Express, Red Star and United Carriers. In 2002, he moved to Fortec as managing director, and helped turn it into one of the most respected pallet distribution networks in the UK.
Rod had a huge knowledge of the industry, as well as the ability to manage a team in a way that looked easy... But it never was.
Not only have I lost a boss and a colleague that I had an enormous respect for, but also a very special friend.
Rod leaves a widow, Sue, and three children, Lucy, Laura and Sara.
Alan Parker
Former director of engineering
TNT Express
I was interested to read the article concerning safety features on the Royal Mail vehicle in CM (1 October).
I couldn't help but be drawn to the photo showing, what I presume is, the Lane Departure Warning System sensor on the dashboard's top surface.
My understanding of the law would suggest that far from being a safety feature, it would, in fact, attract an immediate prohibition because it is within the wiper sweep, and clearly interferes with a driver's forward vision.
It's surprising that all this technology and thinking ends up with such a basic flaw. Certainly, from past experience, I would expect any of my vehicles with equipment mounted in this way to receive a prohibition.
David Seaton
Managing director
Freight Express
Ed's note: Tony Pain, marketing director at DAF Trucks, responds:
"Regarding the Lane Departure Warning sensor, this question has been raised before. We checked with VOSA, which confirms that its fitment doesn't contravene the visibility regulations. Indeed, most manufacturers' systems are similar to ours in their mountings, and I would refer anyone who is interested in this matter to the current VOSA 'Testers's Instruction Manual'. Moreover, the instruction in Testing Standards Enquiry IM 23 HGV/PSV ref 23/17, issued to heavy goods vehicle test station staff in January 2005, doesn't refer directly to the LDV sensor, but the examples shown are similar to that fitted in the Royal Mail Safety Concept Vehicle. I trust this clarifies the situation."
It's time to stand up and do your bit to help our industry find its voice
I was listening to the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2 on 25 September with a feeling of impending doom, waiting for his interview with Lord Adonis the transport minister.
Statements such as: "There is plenty of free parking at the services for lorries", and "There may be a local problem with parking around Dover" showed how industry representation has failed to effectively communicate with the people who control and legislate our industry.
Lord Adonis did argue against a call for banning HGVs without permits from the motorway network during the weekends, and, on road safety, Lord Adonis did make reference to non-UK based HGVs running illegally in the UK. Unfortunately, no mention was made of the high standards and high enforcement regime that UK-based companies adhere to.
This lementable state of affairs, where nobody outside our industry realises how important the road transport industry is to the economy, or the high standards to which we work, is a collective failure. Our industry representation (all of them, including the unions) have failed to make the case for the UK transport industry, but so too has every O-licence holder, transport manager, traffic clerk and driver.
A General Election is coming, but don't expect the industry representatives to put your point of view to the new decision-makers unless you are prepared to do your bit as well.
Write to your MP, attend a local surgery, pester your MEP and, above all, demand your industry representative - whoever they may be - to put across your point of view. You should treat your industry representative like a customer with an overdue account. You have paid your dues and you now want the service you have paid for.
In just a few short weeks Joanna Lumley turned around government policy, had party leaders agreeing with her and even door-stepped a government minister forcing him into a U-turn.
What has our industry achieved in 2009? Oh, yes, increased costs and more regulation.
Martin Barnes
Via email
On the BBC's Jeremy Vine Show (25 September), Lord Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport, was trying to score a few easy points by telling the nation about his whistle-stop tour of motorway service areas, and how good they generally are.
When informed by a caller that they couldn't use lay-bys at night because they were always full of lorries, Lord Adonis agreed this was unacceptable and then added that it was unnecessary because there was plenty of 'free' parking at motorway service areas. He finished off by saying: "Fortunately, it is not a national problem."
So, there you have it. That's the answer, regardless of wherever you are, or what your tacho is saying, make for a motorway.
Mike Davies
Via email
Becoming an ATF for VOSA would not be a sound business decision
I will not be taking the opportunity to run an ATF (Authorised Testing Facility) as part of the VOSA testing transformation scheme for the following reasons:
Within the contract, there is no exclusivity clause for a particular area. This means that the projected figures and number of vehicles that could be expected to be tested might change immediately and dramatically if another ATF is established in the vincinity. This wil have an effect on the capital outlay to meet the ATF infrastructure needs.
I'm not willing to invest £100,000 for what is an uncertain outcome, especially in light of the present economic situation. It appears to me that VOSA is trying to pass on all the risk to the private sector without any commensurate safeguards. It just does not make sound business sense.
Andy Powell
Managing director
Andy Powell Commercials
As a commercial insurance broker that specialises in the transport industry, I felt I had to write in response to the Letter of the Week from Chris Arnold ('Drivers are mired in a Catch-22 situation thanks to insurance firms').
He is right to say that most insurance firms prefer to offer cover for drivers who are over 25, under 65 and have at least two years' relevant experience of the type of vehicle to be driven. This begs the question: how do I get the experience in the first place?
Fortunately, there is a pretty straightforward solution. The vast majority of motor fleet insurers will agree to insure drivers who are either 25 or have fewer than two years' experience - they simply need to be asked in the right way.
Chris Arnold sounds like the sort of driver most insurers would be desperately keen to cover, and I have no doubt that 90% of fleet underwriters would be happy to offer terms. The majority of insurers will increase the excess while Mr Arnold adrives for the first year or so after passing his test - the typical example would be that if a fleet policy had a standard £250 excess, while the inexperienced driver would have an excess of £750.
My suggestion to Mr Arnold is to approach firms and offer to pay any increased excess in the unlikely event of an accident.
I have several clients who adopt this policy. If, for whatever reason, an insurance company applies an additional excess or premium because of a driver's track record, age or experience, they give the driver the opportunity to agree to pay the additional excess.
Peter Blanc
Regional managing director
Oval Inusrance Broking
Time to take care of our own and stop worrying about 'those others'
I'm not surprised that a majority of people voted in favour of supporting the Freight Transport Association (FTA) and the Road Haulage Association (RHA) ('Operators pledge their support for fuel lobby', CM 3 September).
There can't be many (especially among the owner-drivers/smaller hauliers) who could still afford direct action - most of us are just concentrating on surviving. I am pleased, however, that a good percentage voted for getting the general public behind our efforts.
The general public would benefit from any drop in fuel costs won by hauliers (how many know you can buy a new four-wheel-drive vehicle with what it costs to fuel a working truck for three to four months?).
I can't see that wasting time and fuel in blockades is going to do any good, and I don't accept the view that we should just give up.
For those of us who try to earn a living with our own vehicle, giving up is just not an option - we have far too much invested in it.
I'm afraid I remember the days when all the cars used petrol, and diesel was cheaper than petrol, but supply and demand is now also in the pricing equation.
I'm sure if they really put their minds to it, the government could work out a way of taxing hauliers less on their lifeblood, without reducing the fuel costs for cars - after all, the trucks do at least perform a public service (if you've got it, a truck transported it).
I realise this would not do much towards winning public hearts, but the percentage of tax given back to hauliers would not have to be great to make a significant difference in running costs. Also, visiting foreign trucks don't pay a 'road fund' to use our roads - or their own - so we are, in fact, subsidising these trucks to come and take some of our work, with their tanks full of cheaper fuel.
Elsewhere in CM, the RHA is urging hauliers to increase their rates, but for those so-called 'dedicated hauliers' among us, this is not an option. Foreign hauliers can undercut our rates anyway, and this would just kill our own industry faster. There have already been too many haulage firms passed into foreign hands or moved abroad, and we now seem to be governed by Brussels (among others).
Isn't it time we looked after our own country and our own workers for a change?
Isn't it time we looked after our own destiny and stopped worrying about 'those others'?
C Clark
Via email
The mugshot of Tesco's Alex Laffey appears six (yes, six) times in the 10 September issue of Commercial Motor.
That must constitute something of a record.
I suspect that the BBC's newly-relaxed policy concerning product placement has managed to find its way into CM's editorial content.
Any thoughts?
Alan Bunting
Harpenden
Herts
Ed's note: Well spotted, Alan. Alex Laffey appeared on the front cover, the comment page, twice on p4, p7 and p19. For the record, TruckPol's DC Alan Soames appeared five times in the previous issue. There are other supermarkets available (it says here), as CM's coverage of the Nisa-Today's contract in the same issue proves.
Tractor drivers - one rule for them and another for us?
This is a 'knee-jerk' reaction to a potentially lethal accident with a large tractor and trailer combination that occured recently.
I'm both PSV and HGV Class 1 (in old money)-trained, with a full ADR and have been a Member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, and a previous assessor for them, for more than 20 years. All of the above has been funded from my own pocket. As a freelance driver, I'm now also having to find funding in order to undertake the Driver CPC.
I was driving my SUV on a winding country B-road at 7.50pm last month. As a precaution, I had my side-lights on, although it was by no means dark. I'd followed a large loaded tractor and trailer for about a mile and, knowing the road, prepared to overtake at the first straight, safe, section.
Upon arriving at this, which was clear of oncoming traffic, I checked my mirrors, changed down into third, indicated, and accelerated hard to pass the rig. As I came level with the large rear wheels of the tractor, the driver meandered right. I stood on the brakes and managed to avoid contact with his rear wheels by inches. The tractor driver then pulled left and maintained his course.
I passed the rig and looked into my rear mirror to see two people in a single cab. The driver's head was turned to the left and he appeared to be chatting away to his passenger, oblivious to my presence.
Coming back from Lincoln, earlier that week, I also got caught up in a huge tailback caused by a tractor and trailer shedding its load all over the A1(M).
The days of the 'grey fergie', with a tiny trailer, moving from field to field across minor country roads with few other motorists are long gone. Surely the drivers of these 30-tonne-plus articulated units, now capable of 40mph on public roads and dual carriageways, are tested on their competence?
I would like to know what training the drivers of these articulated units need to do, and what licence they require to drive them on public roads? If the answer is, as I suspect, no training and that they can be driven on a car licence, isn't it time things changed?
Adrian Beadnell
Via email
Editor's note: Our colleagues at sister title Farmers Weekly says drivers with a full driving licence can drive a tractor and trailer on the road, but there are seperate licences for tracked machines and for machines over a certain size and weight (ie combines). What do you think? Should drivers of all commercial vehicles be subject to the same licence? Write to us at the address on the top of this page with your views.
I'm writing in about your story concerning haulage from the UK to the Continent being punctured (CM 3 September).
I'm having another blow-out on reading this yet again. Is it any wonder, when we have a government that is plain useless, and doesn't appear to give a damn about one of the key industries of this country, that we are taken as soft patsies by all the foreign drivers who don't pay a brass farthing to use our roads?
A common market, where everybody gets cheaper fuel than us - what's common about that?
John Hall
Chariman
Atchison Topeka
Stop creating unnecessary costs and start helping those that matter
So Mick Jackson of Skills for Logistics (SfL) objects to Suttons' Andrew Palmer calling SfL a quango and wants to be known as a company ('Ditch quangos, save cash, says haulier', CM 6 August). What's in a name?
Far more relevant is Palmer's observation that the government spends the equivalent of the amount generated through fuel duty, which is helping to cripple the industry, on these unnecessary parasitic organisations. In addition to quangos, the list of expensive groups creating streams of costly legislation and bureacratic nonsense seems to be endless; are all well-paid and with employment terms and conditions that the average haulage employee only dreams about.
The only growth sectors in the industry are those creating more costs, while those creating revenue and profit are in terminal decline, as administrations and sales figures show.
More recent examples of wasteful costs are the Driver CPC and the proposed agency driver 12-week rule, aimed at giving the driver more rights ('Agency driver rule could slash openings', CM 13 August). As a West Country haulier pointed out, you can get around this legislation by just replacing the agency driver before 12 weeks expires.
So the time, effort and cost spent on this legislation looks likely to be another waste.
All these seemingly non-productive, well-paid groups of people and their political masters must realise that every extra cost they create, whether it be regulatory or through punitive taxation, ultimately has to be paid for out of the rate charged for hauling the goods in the lorry. These rates are wafer-thin at the moment and are not easy to to increase in the present economic climate.
When these people have costed the industry out of existence, who will they legislate for and where will the shortfall in tax revenue be made up?
On a more upbeat point, good luck to Brian Weatherley. I've been reading CM since the 1950s, and having retired myself, have seen many changes; some good, some not so good, and some that are complete nonsense. One constant in all of this, though, is that Brian's Comment page has been enlightening, entertaining and, above all, always managed to hit the nail on the head.
Thankfully, he won't be departing from the industry completely, and I am sure that Justin Stanton will carry on the good work.
Mike Davies
Via email
We need to protest to get country on track
I wonder if there is going to be any protesting regarding the fuel duty rise. Surely now is the time to get England together to stop it.
Not only are we letting the government dictate to us on other issues concerning this country, but it's time we stuck together and got rid of Gordon Brown and the rest of the money-grabbing Labor MPs. Get them to call a general election and we might have a chance to get this once-create country back on track.
It makes me angry to think that we all talk a good story, but we never stick together.
Do you think that this time we might?
S Laity
Via email
Drivers are mired in a Catch-22 situation thanks to insurance firms
Could anybody out there please tell me why we (as HGV drivers) get things thrown at us all the time?
I am writing as a disgruntled HGV driver of eight years. In order to better myself, I have worked hard and long hours, saved my money in these recessionary times, and have just taken and passed my C+E.
I thought that taking the lessons and passing the test was the hardest thing to do, just like when I took my class two.
You're nervous, you're pacing up and down, you know what to do and you can do it, but will you be able to do it on the day?
Now this is where the real hard work starts. As you have probably been aware, with others saying similar things, companies cannot/will not employ you until you have two years' or more experience under your belt. This situation is, apparently, because of insurance issues.
Please tell me how I go about solving this? I have had more than eight years hauling everything from normal to abnormal loads. For god's sake, doesn't that count for anything any more?
Please can anyone out there tell me what I have to do to better myself? I thought I had by passing my C+E, but the insurance companies clearly think they know best.
Chris Arnold
Via email
A tribute to the best dad in the world
This is a latter about my Dad. He has his own business, and drives his own grab wagon, a Volvo.
It is black and white Volvo with an orange crane, and all my friends think it is cool and wicked.
He doesn't know that I have written this letter to CM, so he will get a big surprise when he reads it after a hard day's work.
He is the best wagon driver I know (well, he is the only one I know, but I'm sure that he is a really good one)!
Here is a poem that I have made up about him for his birthday:
My Dad is called Vinnie, and he is very calm.
He drives a Volvo and he knows it like his palm.
First he goes to a motorway to pick up a pile of stone.
The grabber picks it up, but then he jumps on the phone.
Now to the other side of Lancashire to pick up some muck.
Off to the tip, finished, the next day is another part of the book!
Happy Birthday, Dad.
Emily Campbell (aged 12)
Chorley
Lancs
Editor's note: Happy to oblige, Emily. Happy Birthday, Vinnie. And thanks very much to Emily for sending us this letter.
The haulage industry is drowning under a tidal wave of legislation
Sadly, I was forced to close my general haulage operation last year. The letter from Carl Meyers ('Staying compliant with changes in O-licence laws can be a full-time job') is 100% correct.
How on earth can anyone keep up with all the new regulations that are increasing as each day passes? It's quite impossible, and is more than a full-time 'job' to try to contend with on its own. Don't forget the lack of work and the high cost of diesel.
After trying extremely hard, I found it just wasn't possible to earn anything like enough money, keep on the road and stay within the law. I know I'm not alone when I say that 'enough is enough'.
I have no wish to break any laws, but my problem was how did I know everything was being done within the law when the powers-that-be keep on changing the law and introducing so many new regulations?
We have too many 'laws', so perhaps it would be better if we had fewer, and made the ones we do have easier to understand, but then, the law-makers would be out of work.
Jean Sharples
J Sharples & Son
Eardisley
Herefordshire
There are two sides to every story told
I am the UK representative for Royen Trailers of Belgium and would like to respond to your 'The Specifiers' series article ('Pulling power', CM 30 July).
First, we were pleased to see that the customer is satisfied with the quality of the trailer supplied.
When the order was placed in September 2007, the customer had specified what it required in detail, and Royen designed the trailers to meed those exact requirements.
Delivery for the crane trailer was given as April 2008. Two other special curtainsided machinery and plant trailers were being ordered at the same time, with a delivery date given as March 2008.
We accept that we missed these delivery dates due to circumstances beyond our control, but we do not feel that our customer service should be considered a 'joke'.
We tried our utmost to ensure the minimum of disruption to the client by supplying components that could be adapted, then we delivered low-height tractor units that would be compatible with their existing trailers.
We arranged visits, at our cost, for the client and their crane supplier to our factory to inspect the production of the trailers, as well as reworking the payment terms to help when it came to commissioning new trailers.
We all know that quality comes at a price, but the initial cost for the trailer shown was not as quoted in the article. It was the best part of 10% to 12% less in real terms, and we always quote in euros.
Toby Whitford
Royen Trailers
Via email
There is just not enough coverage of the smaller operators in CM
I am one of your many thousand readers in the UK and I have been a reader of Commercial Motor for years, ever since my granddad and dad introduced me to it. I have enjoyed reading all the articles in the magazine, including the reviews of the vans and HGV trucks, and my dad has used your magazine to sell some of his trucks.
The only problem that I have with the magazines is the haulage companies you use. Every time there’s been a company in the magazine, they have been bigger companies. We never seen companies like my dad’s haulage business. He has four Volvo FM12s for tipper work and works out of around five to 10 different quarries in our area. There are around 20 different companies around this area that do the same work as my dad, with either less or a couple more trucks than my dad.
We hear all the time about how the credit crunch is affecting firms like Eddie Stobart and other big companies. But the credit crunch is affecting all the smaller firms a lot more. This past year I have heard my dad speak about his friends’ businesses having to sell their trucks as it’s becoming so expensive to even fill the trucks up. It’s a shame to hear about the bigger companies I understand, but hearing about the smaller firms would be a great help as well.
Lynette Whaley
Via email
Ed’s note: CM is for readers of all sizes, as our diverse news pages will testify, and in our 16 July issue we took a special look at how the smallest of hauliers and owner-operators are coping in the recession. We want to hear more from companies just like Lynette’s dad so don’t be afraid to send us an email or a letter with what is on your mind!
UK incapable of charging foreign trucks
We should not be surprised that a method of charging track costs to foreign-registered trucks has been put in abeyance yet again ('Hauliers react to lorry road user charge ideas’, CM 30 July). After all, the government department that would administer this is the Department for Transport, which has demonstrated in the past a seeming inability to put in the thought and effort required. Until there is a 180-degree turn of attitude from that department, replacing the visceral contempt of the industry with respect and co-operation, then fairness and a future for British hauliers will not exist.
The vignette system seems the easiest and quickest method to introduce. It could be paid for daily, weekly, monthly or yearly with a charge commensurate with the cost of administration.
I do not see the will to bring this about emanating from Marsham Street [home of the Department of Transport], but then again, all the unions and trade organisations are not showing the foresight to combine on this urgent issue. If you allow civil servants to be indolent and self-serving they will be. You can force them into action if you shake their complacency. It might not be a pleasant task but neither is the sight of more drivers going to the jobcentres and more hauliers going to the wall.
Name Withheld
Via email
Staying compliant with the changes in O-licence laws can be a full-time job
Further to your piece about the slump in O-licence applications (CM 4 June and 23 July) OLMC, as transport consultants who specialise in this area, have been looking into understanding why this slump is occuring, and while we agree with the comments from Joan Williams of the Freight Transport Association and Jack Semple of the Road Haulage Association, could there be more to it?
Yes, the O-licence application and granting fees have gone up, but if you are applying for an O-licence, would you necessarily remember what you paid before, and would that stop you from applying? Most of our customers say it wouldn't - if you need it for your business, then you need it. That's all there is to it.
The impression we get is that the changing laws and the lack of support in compliance is where the problem starts. Many potential operators find it so difficult to interpret the legislation in their attempts to comply that they get frightened.
This can also affect existing operators. Many licence holders find it difficult to keep abreast of the changes in legislation. Even though they want to stay legal, they often inadvertently fall foul of the law because of a lack of awareness of a piece of legislation.
Recently, OLMC received a Silver Business Link & Yorkshire Business Convention award, and our prize was a mentoring session with Channel 4's Undercover Boss Stephen Martin, the CEO of Clugston Group. During a session at the company's Scunthorpe Logistics Site, even their fleet team mentioned that staying compliant with legislation is a huge consumer of resources.
There will always be rogue operators, and we wouldn't condemn attempts to keep them off our roads, but when some of our biggest and most professional operators say their biggest challenge is keeping abreast of changes in the law, we should look more closely at how we can help.
Carl Meyers
Director and senior consultant
OLMC
Road tolls are there to offset our borrowing
When the M6 Toll Road was opened in 2003, the CBI said it would save UK businesses millions of pounds each year by reducing lost working time, reduce fuel usage and improve delivery times. But hauliers have eschewed the toll road because of the cost. As a result, the `old` M6 is swamped with vehicles at rush hour.
Last week, with welcome honesty, Tory leader David Cameron made it clear toll roads are purely a way of raising funds to offset our huge public borrowing - he isn`t trying to pretend they are a `solve-all` solution to traffic congestion. The reality, though, is that most of the income from toll roads will be paid by UK businesses.
Recent statistics on the M6 Toll Road show that only half the motorists it was predicted would use it when it opened are using it now. Given the fact there are about four million business car and van drivers on our roads, it would follow that if the Tories get into power, they wll be looking to businesses to generate the cash.
The fleet industry needs to be prepared, and a 'head in the sand' attitude is just not sustainable.
Robert Kingdom
Head of marketing
Masterlease
DSA's laden test ideas will raise revenue, but not safety
There are many who welcome the latest proposals from the DSA on laden testing (‘DSA bows to pressure over laden HGV tests’ CM 18 June). I, however, do not.
Although I am a strong believer in training drivers on laden vehicles, I do not believe that the DSA’s current proposals will improve training standards, or road safety for that matter.
The proposals focus on compliance with the EU Directive and the DSA’s administrative convenience; and they only pay lip service to improving standards. They represent the worst of both worlds.
The document says: “The new standards should provide for a more realistic assessment of driving ability…” No, they won’t. Anyone who drives a truck, or tows a car trailer, knows they’re most difficult to handle when unladen, when they are most skittish, and fully laden when acceleration is slow, cornering difficult and stopping takes longer.
The mininum test vehicle for a rigid truck is 12 tonnes, but the requirement for eight-speed gearboxes means that many training vehicles are 18-tonners, or downplated versions thereof. An 18-tonner with a well-placed five-tonne load is a more pleasant vehicle to drive than an unladen one – the gears space out nicely, there is less bounce, but still plenty of acceleration.
Training firms will be OK, because they can keep their training vehicles loaded all the time, although it will cause difficulties when they need to hire an additional – or replacement – vehicle or trailer.
The proposed 1,000kg water-filled IBCs for trucks are no problem if you have a loading dock and a forklift available, but many schools do not, so moving the load will be a problem.
The DSA proposals, as written, are extremely specific, inflexible, and were designed just to make life simple for the DSA. Any load that appears to be too light – or too heavy – will result in the test being cancelled. Costs will be increased, but without significantly improving driver training standards.
Edward Handley
WRRS Consultancy
Via email
If it seems too good to be true, it probably is
In response to Brian Devis's letter regarding "An offer that is just too good to be true", he may well be correct.
The majority of firms advertising in the national newspapers are not LGV training centres, but agencies who do not own any training vehicles themselves. They contract the work out to established training centres and take a commission for this service.
When looking for an LGV training course, Mr Devis would be well advised to use a local training centre and avoid paying the commission charges.
The local training centres can't afford the national newspaper advertising costs, but will still offer an excellent service. He should ask: 'Do they have their own training vehicles?'; 'Are their instructors DSA approved?'; and 'What's the name of the firm who'll be doing the training?' Remmeber, if it's too good to be true, it normally is.
Ed Pargeter
Director
EP Training Services
Via email
Message to CM truck testers: 'The Swedes have got it right'
I was relieved to see in your recent tractor unit test that Volvo came last, not becuase I am anti-Volvo, but because it has had so much press lately one could almost think you were biased.
What really amuses me is the way your testers think their opinion is right, and continually drum on about the clutch on Scania Opticruise.
Having driven thousands of miles in an Opticruise Scania I can't fault it, and wouldn't want a vehicle, even an auto, without one. The only time it has been a problem was when a friend was going to drive for me. He had a broken foot but was driving his auto car with no problems, but obviously couldn't drive the lorry because of the clutch.
I had the chance to look at one of the opposition vehicles recently. What did I find? A hill-start switch to allow time to move the foot from the brake to the throttle; another switch so it could be locked into low gear and reverse for shunting; and another switch to allow one to rock back and fourth if stuck - three switches and electrical circuits to replace just one clutch. Sorry chaps, I think I'd rather just have one simple straightforward clutch, and, to that end, I think the Swedes have got it right and should stick to their policy, even if it does irk CM's testers.
Vernon Hill
Via email
Ed's note: "We're happy to agree to differ over Opticruise. But, your complaint about excessive coverage of Volvo may be because it is one of just a few manufacturers whose press departments have not retrenched virtually into oblivion under cover of the recession - a situation we find quite frustrating."
Time to get realistic about rail transport
Once again we are being harangued by the 'move to rail' lobby ('Rail freight aims for 20% share of market by 2039', CM 4 June) and another day has dawned on the paythway to rail freight Nirvana - cynical or realistic? No one disputes that the movement of goods by rail instead of roads ticks all the boxes, but sometimes euophoria clouds reality and ambiguity dilutes actuality.
Moving from 11.5% of goods transported [by rail] to 20% over 30 years represents a 0.2% compound annual growth, not a number that would grab most people's attention or imagination, or spur them into action. Let's look at some of the other claims:
"Continue to be the safest form of transport" - both air freight and coastal shipping have better accident per tonne-mile ratios.
"Ensure that freight need never go by road because there is no room on the railways" is valid so long as the service-level criteria can be met - retailers work in hours, not days. And, of course, it must be a 24-7 offering. Improved 'total' journey times are what we want.
The point on establishing rail connections from terminals to distribution centres is valid, but the infrastructure at each end must have overall capacity capabilities at average and peak operating times. It must be simple, flexible and affordable.
Let's be honest with ourselves and set out to achieve a number of worthwhile step changes over the next 10 years. You never know, we might achieve three workable step changes in 30 years and pass on a worthwhile legacy, not a pile of failed aspirations and flawed objectives.
Peter Jeffrey
CEO
Logistics Support Services
Fighting a vendetta against hard working truck drivers
Over recent years, I have been defending the haulage industry, and in particular truckers, in our local newspaper the Carlisle Evening News & Star, be it about parking, noise, environment, litter or driving habits.
There seems to be a vendetta against the honest, hard working and belittled truck driver - a highly skilled person in their chosen trade.
Recently, truckers were blamed for leaving a McDonald's Happy Meal packaging and leftovers in a lay-by. The lay-by is two junctions down from the nearest McDonald's. That's right. A truck driver, a Happy Meal and a 15-minute drive to a junction that is on the same roundabout as the Golden Fleece truckstop.
Talk about a lack of knowledge about our industry by our local "action news reporter". Did I mention that this article was front page news?
Yes, local residents do have a point with the vehicles parked on Kingstown Industrial Estate and the mess this minority leave. Am I going to blame the foreign drivers? Well, yes, I am. With this minority (or is it now a majority?) there seems to be a lack of cleanliness and manners.
It is the Eastern Bloc driver who seems to think that leaving a two-litre bottle of urine on the grass verge is acceptable behaviour.
It's not just the foreign driver, I know, but I did spend four hours one evening taking names and reg numbers of vehicles and emailing their HQs when possible. I didn't get any replies from them, and I even translated the email into their own language.
Kenneth Moore
Via email
You will miss us when we're gone
RE: 'Two-hour parking limit in some Cumbria lay-bys' (Roadtransport.com, 25 June).
No one gets anything without it being on a truck at some point in its life. Everyone out there forgets this. When we have no lorry drivers left to deliver the products, they will be the first to moan.
Terry Axon
Via email
Setting a bad example on the motorway
I run a small transport business, and we are based in the Midlands.
Despite the recession, we are in a position to grow the firm a bit by buying two more tractor units, but when I enquired at the bank about obtaining finance I was turned away.
My credit history is as clean as a whistle, and I have never defaulted on any payments (be they for a house, car, truck etc)?
I`m really fed up with the banks for, first, getting us into this mess and second, for not offering any solutions to get us out of it.
Does anyone have any insights on other ways to get finance (short of applying to go on Dragons` Den or winning the lottery) that I could look at - government schemes or council incentives etc.
Phil Stephenson
Via email
An offer that is just too good to be true?
I recently spotted a small ad in a national newspaper that was encouraging people to train to become an HGV driver in just five days.
If you signed up for thie course and pass, you will be able to earn more than £40,000. £40,000!
Am I missing a trick here? Surely this is too good to be true!
Brian Devis
Via email
HGV training is taking a lesson from days gone by
It’s amusing to read the latest saga on using laden training vehicles for HGV instruction and testing (‘DSA bows to pressure over laden HGV tests’, CM 18 June).
Back in May 1915, there was a pressing need for training lorry drivers before they were sent to France. The Army Service Corps (ASC) established a driver training school at Osterley Park, which was run by the staff of the London General Omnibus Company from its terminus at Hounslow.
Initial training was conducted on empty three-tonners, but in only a matter of weeks this was changed to using lorries loaded to their full weight because it had been spotted that new drivers who trained on empty trucks were (according to the ASC records) “completely incompetent when given a loaded lorry”.
How many years has it taken for the training/haulage industry to come to the same conclusion?
And the argument it will raise the cost of training is irrelevant. The industry should not be training drivers to lower standards purely because it is cheaper.
You can’t put a price on safety.
Roy Larkin
Via email
Fuel economy isn't a new thing
I had to smile at the article on the new ECOnetic model of the Ford Transit achieving 39.2mpg (‘ECOnomy heaven’, CM 18 June).
I bought my last new Transit on 24 December 2002 – a two-litre diesel – and it has never done less than 40mpg. On occasion it would do more… the salesman said it would, and it did.
Even towing a trailer at a maximum GTW of 3.5 tonnes, it always did at least 30mpg. I’ve always been a steady (owner-) driver and my servicing dealer noted back in 1996 that I looked after my motors.
Ford was selling these vans with the lower-power 75 PS engine at a substantial discount even then.
I have been retired from work for a year or two now, so the van is now personal transport with side windows and rear seats fitted. My grandchildren prefer it to our car. It will be seven years old this Christmas, and it still has its original exhaust, battery and brake pads, needing only one tyre and two number plate light bulbs replacing.
My previous Transits – bought in 1996 and 1999 – did 228,000 miles and 125,000 miles respectively.
How about that, then?
DS Boyes
Bramley
Leeds
Actions of some clamping firms are 'reprehensible'
I read with interest your letter on clampers operating on private land ('Swan Valley clampers cost me a week’s profit’).
The actions of these people are nothing short of reprehensible.
One of our drivers pulled into Sandbach services on the M6 in order to re-secure a section of the load on his trailer – clearly this was a safety issue.
He is adamant the only place to stop was the coach parking area because the HGV and abnormal load parking areas were full. While inside the trailer with the curtain open, the vehicle was clamped with no warnings whatsoever. This was in spite of the fact that the clamper looked into the trailer.
I spoke to the firm and asked that they release it since we were only rectifying a road safety problem, only to be told that “once the clamp is on, the only way it comes off is when the release fee is paid”.
Having paid £255 by credit card, my driver said that the receipt stated the release fee was £150. I tried to retrieve the cash from the clampers, but was told they could charge what they like.
The threatening attitude of these people is unacceptable. Surely the motorway service operators cannot condone this sort of behaviour.
David Ormond
Fleet Manager
Maxim Logistics Group
Ed's note: A spokesman for RoadChef says that it is not its policy to comment on individual cases, as there is a seperate appeals process available for affected drivers to pursue with the subcontractor CPS Enforcement (Northern) Ltd itself, and RoadChef would not wish to prejudice the outcome of any such appeal. He adds that clamping is not a profit-making venture for RoadChef, in that RoadChef doesn't receive any revenue from CPS Enforcement and doesn't make a penny from any of the release fees.
Come down and park up in Dover
I am writing in response to Malcolm Stockill's letter entitled "Secure parks? Not in the UK..." (CM 30 April).
Although we agree with some of his observations we ask him to visit our secure Dover Truck park, at the bottom of the A2, three miles from Dover Port.
Our site boasts a number of high-tech CCTV cameras, palisade fencing complete with rota spikes and automatic number plate barriers - we give the driver that 'safe' feeling.
We also have an onsite restaurant that offers a great menu. Drivers arrive and can shower in the clean new facilities, have something to eat and we'll take care of the rest!
Ed Bembridge
Truckstop Manager
Dover Truck Stop
PS - CDC truck shop is here too!
It can pay off if you stand up for your rights
Those who have to deliver in London may be interested to know the London Lorry Control Scheme is not what it seems.
Back in April, we had a muckshift operation in Brixton, and were travelling through town via Holland Park and Earls Court.
In May, I received six notices alleging we had entered the zone without a permit and would have to pay a fine of £550 per notice (reduced to £275 each if paid within a certain time limit).
I appealed on the grounds of insufficient warning signs and had the lot thrown out. Sometimes it's worth putting up a fight for what you think is an injustice.
Nigel Sullivan
Managing Director
KJS Transport Services
Ed's note: CM spoke to a London haulage expert at one of the trade associations, who informed us that councils in ondon can take a more lenient look at first-time breaches of the London Lorry Control Scheme, but following a warning, the payment of fines becomes much more likely.
If drivers want facilities like ours to remain open, they must use us
In reply to the story “Drivers’ fury over ‘lay-by’ claims” (Commercial Motor 28 May): what a can of worms has been unleashed, to use a metaphor (no slur intended on anyone).
Firstly, yes, I received a very damning email from Pat [Nicholson of the Professional Drivers Association], to which I replied perhaps more forcefully than intended. I was VERY upset! We at Orwell Crossing had already produced a ‘Drivers’ menu’ of cheaper items already available on our menu, in order to inform drivers of their choices. This was in January this year.
We followed this at the end of April by slashing the carvery price to £4.99 across the board. We have lost 40% of passing drivers because of the reduced operation of Felixstowe Port as well as about 70% of the local custom on which we depend, who in effect subsidise the drivers by helping to make our lorry park viable.
We have been trading for five years and we still make no profit, although before the recession we were coming close to breaking even. Anne (my manager) and I attended the SETPOS Lorry Parking Conference in Brussels, during which the question was asked (not by us): “How do you make a driver park in a lorry park, and not ‘trouser his night out money?’”
This is a cause of concern to lorry park operators across Europe – if drivers want facilities like ours to remain open, they must use us! We pride ourselves on the service we provide. We are very clean and each shower is cleaned after every use. The toilets are constantly being monitored and that means a cost – two full-time cleaners are employed.
By growing vegetables on our farm, and having a team of highly trained chefs, we produce high-quality, affordable meals. Our chefs prepare and cook all meals from locally sourced ingredients. Again this costs. We are open 24/7, have 24-hour CCTV, security, free entertainment and our prices are on a par with other lorry parks. We charge only £14 to park overnight, which includes a £3 meal voucher and a shower. What more can we do?
Karl Rout, owner/director, and Anne Blowers, manager
Orwell Crossing Lorry Park
A14 Eastbound
Nacton
Ipswich
Swan Valley clampers cost me a week's profit
I would be interested to know whether any other readers of Commercial Motor have been wheelclamped in Swan Valley Park, Northampton, while they were waiting to enter their delivery there.
On Monday 4 May I had a delivery for Outdoor Group in Swan Valley, but as I was too early they told me to go away and come back later.
As I drove round Swan Valley there was absolutely nowhere to park and there were signs on lampposts advising of wheelclamping. This must be the first trading estate that I have ever been to where you can’t park anywhere at all.
So I returned to the gate at the Outdoor Group and just to the right of it there was a disused lay-by off the road.
I decided to park there as I couldn’t go anywhere else due to the tacho and the value of the load and there was not a visible “no parking” sign around.
I had been there for about half an hour when I noticed a van that had pulled up behind me, which I thought might have been thieves.
I went to get out of my cab and within 20 seconds they had sneaked up behind my back wheel and clamped me.
I felt intimidated by two clampers who demanded £155 to take the clamp off.
I phoned the police, who said they could do nothing as it was private property and the clampers (National Clamps) had total control of the whole area.
Things are tough at the moment as a self-employed driver, so at 10am on Monday morning that was my week’s profit out the window.
Kelvin Purcell
Heathrow Flyers
Ed’s note: National Clamps chairman Trevor Whitehouse tells Commercial Motor: “There are 60 signs at Swan Valley and every one of them says the same thing: ‘no stopping at all’. The reason we do it is because our European partners and allies come into the site to park up overnight. Then they mess on the grass verge and pee all over the place. Swan Valley’s owner said enough is enough. It is not my decision. I am just a wheelclamper.”
Whitehouse adds that National Clamps has been running enforcement at Swan Valley Park since March 2005 and the company was charging less than the national average of £250 to remove clamps.
Don't make the drivers pay for CPC training
RE: The article (Commercial Motor 14 May) about Nigel Rice Transport making drivers pay for Driver CPC training. I find it very strange that a company would make its employees pay for mandatory training that can only improve health and safety, constuomer service and personal development for drivers.
As I am sure most hauliers would agree, it is an extra expense the industry could do without, but it is a great opportunity to offer drivers extra vocational training that I am sure most would welcome. Myself and a colleague have attended an RHA course to become Driver CPC instructors. It will enable us to train our 60 drivers to a high standard and roll out this training to other hauliers. It also gives us a chance to tailor the training to our company's and, to a certain extent, the drivers' needs.
I agree with the 'claw-back' clause, which will cover the company financially should the driver leave, but would be very surprised if any driver is happy to pay £1.55 a week for training they are being forced to undertake.
Paul Sharpe
Co-ordinator
Suma Distribution
Employers should pay for Driver CPC
This is in relation to the news article ‘Pallet firm drivers’ wages cut to pay for CPC training’ that appeared in CM recently (14 May).
The majority of drivers have agreed, over a five-year period, for £1.55 to be deducted from their wages every week. This a total of £403 over five years.
Drivers need the CPC for their future, and so do their employers. It is EU Directive 2003/59/EC that requires all professional bus, coach and truck drivers to hold a Driver CPC.
The main benefit, and this is for employers and employees as well as the general public, is that it will improve road safety and lead to better qualified drivers. There will, hopefully, be a reduction in accidents and an improved professional image for drivers.
The other main benefit, and this one is for the boss, is the ability to optimise fuel consumption and the safe operation of the controls to minimise wear and tear. On these two points, the cost of the Driver CPC and paying the drivers’ wages to attend training can easily be recouped. It can possibly be achieved on fuel consumption alone in one year.
So, for companies to deduct the cost of the Driver CPC from wages, or ask a driver to pay for it, is completely wrong.
I am looking forward to getting my Driver CPC, but if any company I worked for asked me to pay for it, they can keep their job and their truck.
Michel Webb
Willenhall, West Midlands
Why is one truck-maker charging quite so much?
I am writing to highlight one aspect of vehicle operation that appears to me to be spiralling out of control – I wonder if our firm alone is experiencing this problem, or if other operators are facing the same hassle.
The issue that concerns us most is the high prices that one manufacturer in particular is charging for new vehicles at present. I am well aware that this company’s products are considered by many to be premium vehicles, a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with, but there is a limit to the level of ‘premium’ that can be charged for any product, particularly in the extremely tough economic situation that we find ourselves in at the moment.
My own particular experience of the product goes back over 25 years or more, and includes driving, operating, specifying and purchasing numerous versions.
Previously, I felt the competitive whole-life costs, especially when the excellent residual value was factored into the equation, made it worth paying the extra charged by the manufacturer.
As a company that purchases goods from within the eurozone, we are well aware of the effect of the weak pound on imported goods, and the difficulties it has caused European truck-makers in this market, but other manufacturers seem to be better able to cope with this situation and still offer their products at competitive prices.
It is also apparent that demand has collapsed in many of the previously fast-developing Eastern European markets. We in the West have far greater experience of these economic cycles, but do not expect to pay an exorbitant price when demand for new vehicles is at a very low level.
Our customers will pay a fair price for good service provided by competent staff operating good-quality equipment, but I have yet to find a customer who is prepared to pay £1 per tonne more because it is delivered by a particular make of truck.
Charlie Fisher
Distribution and warehousing manager
Countrywide Farmers
Reed Business Information Limited.©2009
