BUS WAR IN LONDON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17570, 22 June 1925, Page 8

BUS WAR IN LONDON.

REVOLT OF PRIVATE OWNERS. (Special to tho “ Star.”) LONDON, April 30. London independent omnibus owners last night, at the Central Hall, Westminster, decided to enter on a ratecutting war on May 14, with a view to emphasising their protest against 'the restrictions to which they arc subject under the London Traffic Act, and dissatisfaction with the methods of the Advisory Committee set i.p under that Act. The meeting, which lasted four hours, was that of the Association of London Omnibus’ Proprietors, which comprises 195 different concerns outside (lie London General Omnibus Company. Their chairman (Mr F. AY. Prowse) had resigned from the London and Homo Counties Advisory Committee under the Act by direction of the Council of the Association as a protest against what they alleged to be unta.’r treatment. Mr Prowse said the Advisory Committee consisted chiefly of people, representing the tramways, and the association was simply being used as a “stop gap.” It was useless for their representatives to sit on the committee, for everything was cut and dried beforo they got there. A resolution was passed unanimously approving of the action of the council and the president’s resignation. LEVY OF £1 PER ’BUS. A letter to Sir Henry Maybury, chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, notifying that the association would apply for a public inquiry into the working of the Traffic Acts and the orders recently made under it was read by Mr Parmenter and unanimously approved. It was also suggested in th c letter that confirmation of the proposed order of April 17, 192-5, which they contended, protected tramway interests ns opposed to the motor-omnibus inteersts, be held up until such inquiry had taken plarc. Many members complained bitterly of arbitrary action of the police in interpretation of restrictive regulations. After a lively discussion it was decided to start a fund with a levy of £1 per omnibus for propaganda and publicity purposes, and for the defence of any cases arising out of thc London Traffic Act. 25 PER CENT CUT. Mr Dangerfield suggested they should run omnibuses bearing placards announcing to the public that they were cugaged iu a light for their livelihood —cut tiie fares and challenge the authorities by running on any rout© with pre-issued books of tickets. This suggestion met with full support, and Mr Dangerfield moved: “That on ami from May 14 all independent Omnibuses have a cut of 25 per cent on all ‘General’ fares.” This was seconded by Mr Mv.rgatro.yd, who said they could afford to lose 10s a day per omnibus, but if the “General” had to cut to meet them there would be no profits left for its shareholders. The motion was carried with only two votes against. Mr Parmenter submitted a suggestion by Sir Henry Maybum that the association should form themselves into a company for the purpose of working the London Traffic Act. This had a very mixed reception, some members calling it a “trap.” No resolution was put on the question, and, after some further discussion regarding details of the impending rate-cutting campaign the meeting concluded.