DAIRY COMPANIES' LORRIES

Northern Advocate, 1 June 1925, Page 7

DAIRY COMPANIES' LORRIES

WEIGHT LIMIT PROBLEM. BAY OF ISLANDS DEPUTATION, f " 1 A deputation comprising Messrs. C. Kingston (chairman), T. Guerin and the manager (Mr. G. Monk), of the Bay of Islands Dairy Company, attended the meeting of the Bay of Islands County Council last week in reference to the proposals in regard to preventing heavy lorry traffic. Mr. Hingston stated that since he had previously waited upon the Council upon the same subject he did not know what had been done. He had been warned that they were still in trouble and the dairy company did not like to Ist the matter go by default. The suppliers to the dairy company consisted of 75 per cent ratepayers in the western and northern ridings of the county and the Council should certainly pause and think before they penalised them by driving the company's lorries off ~the road. The lorries were there before with the full consent of the Council, and they had always paid their taxes, and were prepared to continue doing so. With the proposal of putting the large lorries off the road, and the purchase of smaller lorries the suppliers would be penalised. Mr. Hingston contended that high speed was more detrimental jto the road than weight. The dairy i company was prepared to enter into i a guarantee as far as speed was coni cerned. It would be far abetter to raise [ the rates and fees on the large lorries j and get -the benefit. If the company jhad to purchase lighter lorries about ' three men and a few agents would benefit. If the large lorries were turned down they would have to scrap them and go in for Yankee lorries. Light lorries could not be so economically handled as the heavy ones. All he asked was for the Council to weigh the matter Carefully and consider the ratepayers. Mr. Gtierin .endorsed the remarks of the previous Speaker, and said the Council would realise the position they were placing the! Bay Dairy Company ill if they had fo scrap lorries which, cost £2000. They Would be affecting 300 dairy farmers who were ratepayers and it wouW be a ftard's'Mf? ofl these men. He would like to s'e£ the Council take a fair and broad 1 -{dew and allow the 6-ton lorries to c'<wi%>i¥ue' and regulate them by reducing.' sptefetl, raising the tax, or some other method. Lighter lorries with double trips l a/riHiincreased speed would break tip' the' road just as much as : the heavy' l'otriesiMr. Monk said that if the' company I had to go in far stnallcr lorries- t>he wages would be increased! tiy £66t)i> Mr. Coates had intimated tliat the' Council had tne right to make special s arrangements in special cases, and he thought the Council could- allow- the dairy company to use the heavy- lorriesi-

i Cr. C. Nisbet said- 1 he would' likeI to ask Messrs. Hingston and Guerin I as men and ratepayers whether- they considered the roads fit to stand up to 6-ton lorries. reply of Mr. Kingston was in' the' affirmative, : provided that* speed was arid with that Mr. ■ Guerin concurred. ■ The latter added that the roads showed less sign of wear and tear during the last two years. Other lorries were op'etating carrying six or seven tons : of hardwood telegraph poles for the Post aftd Telegraph Department. These were the ' class of lorry cutting up the roads, and the dairy company was getting the blame. Mr. Reed said that unless the were countersunk, when the load'cameS on the sides spread out. If tlie roads were 4-ton roads and "the company went ov»r them with 6 tons the company would be responsible for the damage done. All the Council wanted to do was to shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of those who do the damage. The dairy com : ' puny could come in under heavy traffic, supply a bond/ and pay for the damage done. The chairman intimated that llie Council would consider the request "of the deputation, but' that any decision would be delayed for some time.