Letters

Chatting to your client pays off

11 March 2010

I was very interested to read the letter from Willie McArthur (CM 25 february), with regard to response times from both truck dealerships and insurance brokers.

Over several years, I have formed the same opinion, but I put it down to age and the good old days syndrome which tends to dilute your memory.

I have now moved into transport operations, although my main experience was gained in the truck dealership networks. I have since had a growing opinion that the majority of suppliers to our industry have lost their ability to either respond or communicate. I put this down to being a dinosaur, although the basics of looking after your clients needs will never change from response, selling the right product and offering comprehensive after-sales service.

In my early days of working for a Leyland dealership the competition was intense, with five other Leyland dealers marketing our franchised area, plus a host of 'British manufacturers' along with the new kids on the block from the continent.

At that time everyone 'cold called' and a mis-timed call could cost you a sale, as it was taken that you were not sufficiently interested. We have now hit one of the worst recessions in our history, so why are the truck dealerships not fighting for the business?

From speaking to other hauliers, it appears that the emphasis is on contacting the dealer, placing an order and with very little discussion of what might be best for their operation.

Like most people who have worked in the dealership network, they will been on sales courses emphasising the multi-stage selling techniques adopted to close a sale. Apart from boring the client to distraction, you would have been lucky to have got to the third or fourth stage before you were ejected off the premises, for insulting their intelligence. What they should have taught us on these courses was how to listen, learn and gain experience from the sharp end experience of these operators.

The experience gained by listening to clients problems and their needs was the forerunners of repairs and maintenance contracts, contract hire, flexible finance packages and fixed pricing, all of which assist clients cash-flow, as opposed to being an immediate burden.

We also discussed in detail the clients application and what was the best method to address their problems, with regard to operational specification. Through these discussions we learnt very quickly about numerous industries, which built up your own databank of experience, which you could draw on as necessary and enable you to have an input into discussions with clients.

A considerable level of selection has been reduced, because of the increases in engine power and the flexibility of transmissions, but there is still room for a more professional approach to clients needs. I do strongly believe that those truck dealerships who uphold or reintroduce these standards will reap the success they deserve.

Carl Stephens
via email

Flexibility is vital in a recession

04 March 2010

I take issue with one piece of 'advice' offered recently by the Road Haulage Association.

Put in context, it is correct to say that finance and leasing have become more popular methods of funding commercial vehicle fleets over the past 20 years, and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association's members own or manage a fleet of more than 450,000 trucks and vans, playing a key part in moving freight.

To say, though, that a recession may reverse the popularity of commercial vehicle rental and leasing is just not true.

The Road Haulage Association was quoted alst month in CM's sister title Motor Transport as saying: "Outright purchase might be old-fashioned, but it gives flexibility. Lease vehicles have to be on the road earning money, while it is possible to park up or dispose of owned equipment."

In some respects, that is correct.

Outright purchase does give an operator flexibility during a recession, and it gives them the flexibility to divert thousands of pounds of scarce cash into a fixed asset instead of using it to pay off debts or invest elsewhere.

The sort of flexibility you want during a recession, though, is the flexibility to be shielded from residual value risk, the flexibility to hire or lease vehicles as and when you need them and the flexibility to pay a fixed monthly fee, which, in turn, will free up essential cash flow.

John Lewis
Chief Executive
BVLRA

Discovering it isn't good to talk

25 February 2010

If there's still a recession on at the moment, it can't be affecting the main insurance firms. For example, I've been waiting nearly a month now for a major tyre company representative to arrange a meeting. I get a different excuse each time I phone up.

Similarly, a major commercial vehicle insurance broker tells me everytime I call up that he has the paperwork in front of him, but needs to email me some questions. This has now been going on for three weeks.

As for truck manufacturers, I recently phoned and asked for a quote on one vehicle. I was lucky because, after about six calls, I got a quote but that was it, no other contact. After complaining to their head office, all I got was "we will ask the dealer to contact you" and, yet again, nothing.

I regularly deal with a family firm who have a few dealerships, but the nearest one is 300 miles away. I keep getting asked why? The reason is simple. Any quotes are attended to promptly and you always get a follow-up call.

Willie McArthur
Via Email

Read definition of towing trailers

11 February 2010

I note that Dick Denby has responded to my letter ('The devil is in the detail', CM 10 December 2009) about the legality of towing two trailers with an articulated tractor unit.

Mr Denby is correct in saying that Regulation 83 of the Construction and Use Regulations permits a heavy car to tow two trailers if one of them is a towing implement ('Understanding the small primt', CM 7 January). But I expected Mr Denby to have read the definition of a towing implement and to have ruled it out as not applying to his two-trailer combination before putting it forward as authority for exceeding the permitted length limit.

A towing implement is defined in Regulation 3 of the rules as "a device on wheels designed for the purpose of enabling a motor vehicle to draw another vehicle by the attachment of that device to that other vehicle in such a manner that part of that over vehicle is secured to and either rests on or is suspended from the device and some but not all of the wheels on which the other vehicle normally runs are raised off the ground".

It is mainly the last part of this definition that kills Mr Denby's argument. To successfully claim in court that the first trailer is a 'device' would be difficult enough, but to prove some of the wheels of the second trailer 'on which it normally runs' are raised off the ground would be impossible.

The provision relating to towing implements was introduced years ago to enable broken-down or crashed vehicles to be moved with either front or back wheels resting on a low-height trailer in circumstances where it was not possible or practical for them to be given a suspended tow from the jib of a recovery vehicle.

James Duckworth
Transport Law Services
Woking
Surrey

Dig deep to get our voice heard

21 January 2010

We are establishing a fighting fund to help get 'A Haulier into Parliament' in the upcoming General Election. Peter Carroll, long-associated with Seymour Transport, and one of the people behind the successful Joanna Lumley Gurkha campaign, is standing in Maidstone.

Carroll has put a lot of his own money into the project, but there is a £15,000 shortfall. Jim Dodd of Dodd's Transport and I, are donating £500 each from our respective companies. We can barely afford to do this. However, we believe that our industry will continue to suffer unless there is at least one MP who really understands our problems. We've had enough of struggling year in, year out, to get a politician of any party to take our industry seriously.

For too long, we have relied on the 'paid' leadership of our Trade Associations to further our cause. I remain supportive of these bodies - but we need more. As an MP, Carroll can take our battle right to the heart of the government.

Carroll has been a prominent Liberal Democrat for many years and he will stand under that banner. We know him to be an independent-minded and clear-thinking man who wants to solve problems. There are no guarantees that he will win his seat - we all know that politics is an unpredictable business. But that said, our industry needs a champion in Parliament, I and Jim Dodd are backing him all the way.

Please, if you care about our industry and can afford any sum of money, please contact me to help make sure we put 'one of our own' in Parliament.

DfT: 'Your responsibility is to the State, not your sponsors'

17 December 2009

Your article suggesting that the Department for Transport (DfT) is more likely to approve longer semis than to embrace full 'B' Doubles is probably right (CM 10 December).

How could it be otherwise when ministers' first and preferred plan is to do nothing?

The DfT's second option, when it can lon longer sustain plan A, is to allow that 15% extra cube that the longer semi offers, which will give the shipper the level of capacity they already possess with drawbar combinations.

The government's third option, to allow proper longer, heavier vehicles that gives 57% more cube frightens ministers to death.

Overriding all of these is the policy, running for six years or more now, which protects the government's rail sponsors.

That means 'kill it if you can' - the fallback option being delay, and when you can no longer delay, then restrict the viability of better lorries in any way possible.

It seems to go over the heads of those who don't want to know that the UK moves a greater percentage of its inland freight by road than France, Germany, Spain or, indeed, any other EU member state.

We need efficient road freight more than other Europeans do and yet we are falling behind. We hope all government ministers  and indeed shadow ministers - will get this in focus sooner rather than later.

Current DfT policy is to applaud and even finance productivity advances of rail freight, but impede those of road freight.

Ministers, your responsibility is to the state, not to your sponsors.

Ministers, look at your warrant of office.

The devil is in the detail when it comes to LHVs

10 December 2009

While Denby Transport might be applauded for its tenacity in pressing for LHVs to be allowed on UK roads, the company's stated intention (CM, November 12) to use one on public roads is foolhardy to say the least.

Not only that, but the response it gave to Graham Wilson's letter (CM, November 26) is disingenuous and misleading to CM readers by failing to give the full and correct legal position.

Regulation 7(5) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 does state that where a motor vehicle is drawing two or more trailers the overall length of the combination of vehicles shall not exceed 25.9m. But after years of pushing for LHVs, I have no doubt that Denby Transport is also fully aware of Regulation 83, which specifies how many trailers a motor vehicle is permitted to draw.

The only vehicles permitted to draw two trailers are locomotives (three trailers) and motor tractors (two trailers if both unladen).

Locomotives and motor tractors are defined as vehicles not themselves constructed or adapted to carry a load. The tractive unit of an articulated vehicle is constructed to carry a load and, consequently, comes within the definition of a heavy motor car in the same way as a rigid goods vehicles. A heavy motor car on the kind of work involved is permitted to draw one trailer only.

So, Denby Transport's problem is not with Regulation 7, but with Regulation 83. There is no legal 'grey' area involved.

Denby Transport not only runs the risk of a heavy fine and costs, but where the holder of an O-licence sets out to deliberately break the law, he puts his good repute into question.

Jim Duckworth
Transport Law Services
Woking, Surrey

Addressing the LHV issue

02 December 2009

Full marks to Denby for having the balls (and the wallet) to bring the Eco-Link LHV issue to some kind of conclusion by running one (Letters, CM 26 November).

The government persistently hides behind the fact that we're part of Europe when it wants to avoid decisions - or that we're not part of Europe when it wants to avoid other decisions. In almost every case it leaves the UK behind and disadvantaged economically.

It's not surprising we criticise the French, but secretly admire the way they look after their national interest. THey seem to make decisions based on economic expediency.

Mark Carrington
Managing director
King Vehicle Engineering

Should we name and shame Denby for trying to find a grey area in our rulebook?

26 November 2009

I would like to comment on the news story 'Denby to defy DfT decision to test LHV on UK roads' (CM 12 November).

Operating this vehicle would give Denby an unfair advantage over other hauliers, and I do not understand why Mr Denby feels that he has the right to flout the law in this way.

As abnormal load hauliers, we are constantly struggling to compete with other hauliers who are trying to 'bend the rules' and take advantage of various grey areas in our rule books to find ways of getting two or more loads onto one vehicle, but the length of an articulated vehicle is one rule that is quite well fixed and clear at 16.5m, unless it is specifically designed to carry abnormal indivisible loads, and/or operating under special types regulations.

I would have thought that any VOSA official worth their salt would welcome this vehicle into a lay-by with open arms and it will be the easiest prohibition and prosecution they will ever have.

We might all be under pressure to increase productivity and reduce CO2 emissions, but if we all suddenly ignore the rulebooks to suit ourselves, the country will descend even further into chaos than it is now.

There is also the issue of CM encouraging us to 'name and shame rogue operators'. Would operating this overlength vehicle illegally put Denby into this category?

Graham Wilson
Director
HC Wilson Transport

Ed's note: We could not let this letter see print without Denby Transport director Dick Denby being given the right to reply. Dick tells CM: "Our objective is to "test and clarify" the law, not to flout it. If the courts decide the truck is illegal, we stop. If the court decides all is well, then all of your readers will be free to do the same."

Denby is looking to test the application of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Section 7 (1) of the act limits the length of an articulated vehicle to 16.5m. However, Section 7(5) allows a combination of two or more trailers at a maximum length of 25.9m. Denby only intends to use vehicles of 25.25m in length.

Make the tractor units longer so drivers can properly 'live' in them

19 November 2009

This issue of longer heavier vehicles (LHVs) does not appear to be reaching a conclusion in the forseeable future - not even so much as a compromise.

Never a supporter of LHVs, I am, however, very interested in the concept of an increase in overall length of an articulated vehicle. Not that I wish to carry more cargo, which the customer is unlikely to pay extra for, but the opportunity to have a cab which, on my longer journeys, I can actually live in.

The longer articulated vehicle has been used extensively in France, but the French don't use it to carry more cargo. Instead, they increased the length at the front end, the tractor unit, which is why, on my travels, I am amused to note the vast number of the United States' finest trundling up and down the highways and byways of France.

However, our French colleagues do risk the ire of enforcement authorities and regularly receive a penalty of €90 for being over-length, which many seem willing to accept.

I would support an increase in overall length to 19m for an articulated vehicle, with operators given the choice to add it to the trailer or, as in my case, to the tractor unit. This should give Scania the chance to reintroduce the famed Longline, which should satisfy many drivers. My own choice would be the Kenworth, which should inspire anyone - young or old - to consider a driving career.

As for the interference from The Department of Abject Failure in Transport [DAFT], might I suggest this body keeps its nose out of an issue it seems to know absolutely nothing about.

Peter F Orr
Plymouth
Via email

No excuse for dangerous habit of pulling in early

12 November 2009

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

We are drowing under a tidal wave of rules and regulations

05 November 2009

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.

Safety issue: Agricultural vehicles should be transported on loaders

29 October 2009

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

Saying goodbye to Rod Abrahams, who had road transport in the blood

22 October 2009

A special friend 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

It's time to stand up and do your bit to help our industry find its voice

15 October 2009

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

Becoming an ATF for VOSA would not be a sound business decision

08 October 2009

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:

• Having seen the draft contract, it appears to be wholly in favour of VOSA.
• There is no scope for compensation resulting from the failure of VOSA to provide testers.
• Any failure of equipment becomes the sole responsibility of the ATF.
• Advance payment to VOSA is required, and there is very limited flexibility in the fact that no refund will be made in seven days. This really does not take into account the needs of the haulage industry.
• The only time a refund will be given is if VOSA fails to meet its commitments.
• If a substituted vehicle costs more, then the ATF will pay. However, if it costs less, VOSA will not refund any money.
• VOSA retains the right to cancel testers on the day with no penalty other than refunding the test fees.

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

Time to take care of our own and stop worrying about 'those others'

01 October 2009

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

Tractor drivers - one rule for them and another for us?

17 September 2009

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.

Stop creating unnecessary costs and start helping those that matter

10 September 2009

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

Drivers are mired in a Catch-22 situation thanks to insurance firms

03 September 2009

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

The haulage industry is drowning under a tidal wave of legislation

27 August 2009

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 is just not enough coverage of the smaller operators in CM

13 August 2009

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!

Staying compliant with the changes in O-licence laws can be a full-time job

06 August 2009

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

DSA's laden test ideas will raise revenue, but not safety

30 July 2009

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

Message to CM truck testers: 'The Swedes have got it right'

16 July 2009

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."

Fighting a vendetta against hard working truck drivers

09 July 2009

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

Setting a bad example on the motorway

09 July 2009

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

HGV training is taking a lesson from days gone by

02 July 2009

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

Actions of some clamping firms are 'reprehensible'

25 June 2009

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.

It can pay off if you stand up for your rights

25 June 2009

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.

Swan Valley clampers cost me a week's profit

04 June 2009

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.

Employers should pay for Driver CPC

28 May 2009

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