Matters of moment, September 1966

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

GO-SLOW BRITAIN

Apparently because those who, rightly or wrongly, motor to pubs to drink made sufficient fuss, Mrs. Castle seems to have abandoned breathalysers. But the 70-limit remains, penalising the minority of experienced, skilled drivers, while the large majority, who obviously couldn’t care less and by some mystically-acquired statistics are alleged to agree with the restriction, continue on their accident-prone way.

In the long run this restriction may well do Britain untold harm— supposing, for instance, that the B.M.C. should decide to discontinue the so-export-worthy Jaguar E-type, loss of Home sales and Mrs. Castle could provide the excuse… . America, land of large, unstable, brake-fade automobiles, has a 70-limit which, although far from reducing road accidents, makes such comparatively-lethal machines tenable—so if crowds jam American car stands at next month’s London Motor Show, eager to buy cars now appearing safe for Mrs. Castle’s Go-Slow Britain, where will lie the blame, at a time when imports should decrease and our engineers and our country should be reaping the benefit of cars safe at speeds suited to modern roads and Motorways?

We are well aware of the scorn directed at those who regard as praiseworthy “any country but their own,” but a country must maintain fair government and respected laws if it is to retain the continuing loyal patriotism of its citizens.

Every sympathy is rightly shown to the dependants of the shot policemen; which might be coupled with some thought tor those who have suffered at the hands of murderers and robbers still at large. With such violent crime on the increase, the police need, and readily ask and accept, the assistance of all decent citizens. Most law-abiding Britons are motorists but become the largest section of the “criminal” population as soon as they venture out of the garage, according to recent statistics of Court proceedings. Isn’t it a terrible case of mis-management and contemptuous laws when last year 1,264,338 drivers were prosecuted and 875,625 mainly-minor offenders, as motorists, paid over £5.8-million in fines and when 1 in 17 of us goes in danger of receiving a motoring summons within the year—the majority virtually unharmful and unnoticeable to anyone but the police: who should regard the great majority of drivers as their allies?

At the present time it seems more than ever sickening to see able-bodied uniformed men setting up radar traps and prowling the yellow lines in deserted streets. Yet hark to the news of a zealous Berkshire Police Inspector who brought a successful prosecution (with fine) against a partially-paralysed widow. merely because she was carrying two infants on the back shelf of her invalid carriage—when dolly-danglers, sticker-addicts and the rest go free—and note that Mrs. Castle is now turning her attention to tuning-kits and whether they should be permitted on ordinary saloon cars in going-ever-slower Britain. . . . Yet what apathy sporting motorists and the Motor Industry display in speeding things up again!

THE MONOPOLIES COMMISSION AND THE PETROL COMPANIES

We have received the following cornments, on which it would be interesting to have an answer :—

“The Monopolies Commission recommendations and attitude frankly surprise me. Surely the purpose of the Commission is to prevent bodies— other than governmental, becoming monopolies in their field, thus allowing the public no freedom of choice.”

“There is, however, freedom of choice in the petrol and oil market, and it appears to me that the result of the Commission’s recommendations for the petrol market will be to freeze those sales and distribution levels already held. The larger oil concerns will hold their share of the market indefinitely, secure in the knowledge that their competitors—large or small—can make no noticeable inroads into their position. The smaller competitors, however, will now be unable to increase distribution at all, unless financially impractical terms be offered to holders of freehold and untied sites. This, surely, is in complete disagreement with the aims of the Monopolies Commission?

“Further, I consider it a misuse of both business ethics, and the English language, when the Board of Trade asks for Petrol Suppliers to sign voluntary undertakings, and when one company, Total Oil Products, quite rightly in my opinion, refuses to sign their virtual death warrant, has the pleasure of being instantly served with a statutory order. Hardly voluntary? “