Up yours

[Metroland]

Super truck put on the road despite on the road despite the government saying they are not legal as a direct threat to rail freight, this so the haulage company can bring a legal case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8387774.stm

 

[mumrar]

I can just picture that weaving in and out of the hard shoulder while the driver fights sleeping. Perhaps the haulage firm feels that 3500-odd deaths per year on our roads are trivial? Still, plenty of room to stash a murdered prostitute or two in the back. Our roads will become less safe if these things proliferate, they'll accelerate slower, need wider arcs at junctions, take longer to overtake, and cause bigger tailbacks when dumped to unload wherever with the hazards switched on.

 

[Failed Unit]

, take longer to overtake,

Didn't you know that there is an unwritten rule that states that lorries can only overtake on 2 lane motorways & daul carriageways on hills. They should take at least 5 miles to pass each other and cause at least a 2 mile tailback of 50mph traffic.

 

[Swift-Deere]

I Think It looks Awesome and should be allowed!!!
Cant be doing with people who moan about road freight!!!

 

[Metroland]

Denby Transport says it will risk legal action and run one of its pioneering Eco-Link Longer and Heavier Vehicles (LHVs) on UK roads without a government permit.

The decision by the Lincolnshire haulage firm comes after it took legal advice on whether it would be breaking the law to run its own trial of LHVs after former transport secretary Ruth Kelly rejected calls to allow them on the roads.

However, the Department for Transport (DfT) has stated it still consider the use of any LHV on UK roads as illegal.

Director Dick Denby insists that the Eco-Link trailer produces less CO2 emissions, takes up less road space and would boost UK productivity.

However, following a 2008 report into the use of the vehicles, the DfT claimed there would be safety risks and environmental drawbacks due to the modal shift from rail to road.

http://www.roadtransport.com/Articl...denby-risks-legal-action-to-pioneer-lhvs.html

So really it all comes down to whether you want a further modal shift from Rail to road, less environmental benefits (accidents, damage, congestion and so on).

Not really sure who its supposed to benefit:

Car drivers: Probably not, larger lorries blocking up roads, especially on turning - this is what they found in European trials. European roads are much bigger than UK roads.

Truck drivers: Depends if it reduces the number of trucks on road, as the hauliers claim, in which case it means less jobs.

Rail freight: Nope, possibly 40% loss in freight

The only benefit is more profit to hauliers.

These are the reasons I'm against it. Depends on ones own point of view I guess.

 

[gordonthemoron]

lorries should be banned from overtaking on (uphill) inclines

 

[mumrar]

Cant be doing with people who moan about road freight!!!

What, like these people http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/oct/22/5
Or these whingers http://www.autoevolution.com/news/lorry-driver-using-laptop-kills-family-of-six-4019.html
Or is it maybe this incident that makes you think something with twice the weight will be safe http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Sneezing-lorry-driver-who-killed.5780433.jp
As a note on this last one, a sneeze jerked him out of the driving seat. Oh Eff off, even Barry Manilow can't sneeze that hard! The current lorries are too dangerous, this death trap will be much worse.
When I mentioned the overtaking time, I meant the time for cars etc to pass IT, not for IT to pass things.

 

[Failed Unit]

Car drivers: Probably not, larger lorries blocking up roads, especially on turning - this is what they found in European trials. European roads are much bigger than UK roads.

You raise an interesting point here, the Bendy bus has cause problems in London with turning (and crushing cyclists). I wonder how these lorries will cope with some of the more windy A-roads. I guess we will have one get stuck sooner or later!

 

[Aictos]

I don't support these as if they do get permitted to use the roads, where do they stop getting bigger?

Next thing we all know, they will be twice as long!

No thanks, the railways are safer and can take much much more then any "super" truck can.

 

[mumrar]

Interesting that this firm are willing to operate despite having no licence for them. If they go against the DfT then surely they are contraveneing their hauliers licence. Which would invalidate their insurance. And surely also be in breach of the Highway code and other road regulations as well as the companies Health and Safety case. That's a lot. Imagine the hell the press would give if, for example, Virgin decided that HMRI were wrong, so we're gonna run our own test of Pendolinos at 140mph under conventional signalling. The hauliers licence should be removed if this truck runs, I'll happily photograph it - as evidence for the Crown!

 

[90019]

What, like these people http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/oct/22/5
Or these whingers http://www.autoevolution.com/news/lorry-driver-using-laptop-kills-family-of-six-4019.html
Or is it maybe this incident that makes you think something with twice the weight will be safe http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Sneezing-lorry-driver-who-killed.5780433.jp

Right then, we'll take all the cars off the road too because they cause fatal crashes as well.

You do seem very anti-truck, but how many trucks drive on our roads each year without incident?
And how many people are killed when just cars crash?

If we're saying that trucks should go because they're dangerous, then cars should go first, because they cause more crashes than trucks do. Truckers are also usually much better drivers than many who are out in cars. But the truck crashes tend to get more publicity, I suppose because they are rarer and usually there's a bit more damage.


One point though, the weight isn't increasing, only the length.

 

[David]

What, like these people http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/oct/22/5
Or these whingers http://www.autoevolution.com/news/lorry-driver-using-laptop-kills-family-of-six-4019.html
Or is it maybe this incident that makes you think something with twice the weight will be safe http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Sneezing-lorry-driver-who-killed.5780433.jp
As a note on this last one, a sneeze jerked him out of the driving seat. Oh Eff off, even Barry Manilow can't sneeze that hard! The current lorries are too dangerous, this death trap will be much worse.
When I mentioned the overtaking time, I meant the time for cars etc to pass IT, not for IT to pass things.

Oh dear, it's time to call all lorry (drivers) dangerous killers again. It's not the vehicles that are dangerous, it's the person behind the wheel, no matter what vehicle it is.

What your basically saying, that behind the wheel of a car, I'm no danger to anyone, but as soon as I climb into a lorry (I'm licensed to drive any rigid vehicle), I'm a menace to society. It's the other way round !

 

[mumrar]

One point though, the weight isn't increasing, only the length.

So what is it transporting? Helium? How do you expect it to be longer, have more loaded capacity, and not weigh more, that's just silly. I am anti-truck, because although cars cause more accidents, there are a lot more of them than trucks. Our roads are not built to take this kind of vehicle, with the exception of perhaps motorways. I'm also against trucks due to the amount they shift versus rail. It was almost instantly recogniseable when Royal Mail abandoned rail due to the influx of roads on to our road network. This vehicle is so much more dangeros because it shares roads with pedestrians (there's not always a footpath), horses, cyclists, mobility scooters, motorbikes, cars and vans. Even that sentence looks congested! I was using those articles to show that trucks are dangerous enough in their current form, not that they should be outright banned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh dear, it's time to call all lorry (drivers) dangerous killers again. It's not the vehicles that are dangerous, it's the person behind the wheel, no matter what vehicle it is.

What your basically saying, that behind the wheel of a car, I'm no danger to anyone, but as soon as I climb into a lorry (I'm licensed to drive any rigid vehicle), I'm a menace to society. It's the other way round !

That reminds me of the national rifle association of Americas 'Guns, don't kill people, people do' - but, the gun helps! Everyone who drives, myself included, is susceptable to lack of concentration and cock ups. It's what can happen when you do that matters, and in a vehicle this size a loss of concentration that could cause a swerve or lock up in a car could be so much worse. I'm not out to get lorry drivers, but if I asked someone to carry 2 boxes and they did so fine, it doesn't mean they'll carry 10 boxes safely.

 

[90019]

So what is it transporting? Helium? How do you expect it to be longer, have more loaded capacity, and not weigh more, that's just silly.

Because it will be transporting lighter goods, tissues were mentioned in the video I think.
They're going to have the same weight limit as the normal trucks they run.

Our roads are not built to take this kind of vehicle, with the exception of perhaps motorways.

Which is where trucks mostly run anyway.

This vehicle is so much more dangeros because it shares roads with pedestrians (there's not always a footpath), horses, cyclists, mobility scooters, motorbikes, cars and vans.

Well, vans are bigger and heavier than cars, and they both share roads with pedestrians, etc. so should LWB vans be taken off the roads because they're technically a bit more dangerous than SWB ones?

I was using those articles to show that trucks are dangerous enough in their current form, not that they should be outright banned.

The simple fact is though, as David says, the vehicles aren't the problem, it's the people driving them.
As an example, on a 5 hour trip a couple of weeks ago, on a mix of A roads, B roads and Motorways, in the afternoon into the evening, I saw many cars driving badly, I got cut up by quite a few cars, and drove past a car that had crashed off the road. On the same trip, I saw many trucks out, was cut up by none, saw no bad driving by any and saw no crashed trucks. Are you trying to tell me that the dangerous vehicles on this trip were the trucks doing between 40-56mph rather than the cars doing between 40 and 90-100mph?

 

[Metroland]

Blimey you do get a lot of stick on this forum for supporting rail freight instead of road freight, and high speed rail instead of domestic flights don't you?

Anyway, a few trucking facts

HGVS were twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents as cars in 2007 – Road Statistics Traffic Speeds Chart 10 p 115 2007, issued July 2008

TRL stated that when trucks are in a smash they do serious damage. HGVs in the UK account for only 6% of all vehicle-km driven but are involved in 17% of road accidents where there are fatalities – Iain Knight Commercial Motor 17th July 2008

Over 82% of HGVs exceeded their speed limit of 50 mph on dual carriageways and almost three-quarters exceeded the 40 mph limit on single carriageway non-built up roads in 2007. Source: DfT Transport Statistics Traffic Speeds Figure 3.5C for 2007 issued July 2008
Blameworthyness ratio – lorries and LGVs had the highest blame orthiness ratio of all work vehicles, over 4 times higher than buses (PCVs, taxis and emergency vehicles – Road Safety Research Report no 58 Nottingham University for DfT: In depth study of work related road traffic accidents August 2005

HGV/LGVs are responsible for more fatalities than any other work vehicle type regardless of blame. In particular on rural A roads and motorways, reasons = poor observation, close following, fatigue, load problems, vehicle defects & time constraints. A quarter of fatalities are caused by LGV/HGV drivers breaking the speed limit. Road Safety Research Report no 58 see bullet above for DfT August 2005

RAC Foundation survey found that HGVs were the second biggest fear for motorists travelling on motorways. Trailgating was the highest - 2005.

 

[Ferret]

Looks like the Old Bill took a dim view being as they stopped it as it drove off the depot forecourt!

 

[90019]

Blimey you do get a lot of stick on this forum for supporting rail freight instead of road freight, and high speed rail instead of domestic flights don't you?

I support both road and rail freight.

HGVS were twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents as cars in 2007 – Road Statistics Traffic Speeds Chart 10 p 115 2007, issued July 2008

TRL stated that when trucks are in a smash they do serious damage. HGVs in the UK account for only 6% of all vehicle-km driven but are involved in 17% of road accidents where there are fatalities – Iain Knight Commercial Motor 17th July 2008

Over 82% of HGVs exceeded their speed limit of 50 mph on dual carriageways and almost three-quarters exceeded the 40 mph limit on single carriageway non-built up roads in 2007. Source: DfT Transport Statistics Traffic Speeds Figure 3.5C for 2007 issued July 2008
Blameworthyness ratio – lorries and LGVs had the highest blame orthiness ratio of all work vehicles, over 4 times higher than buses (PCVs, taxis and emergency vehicles – Road Safety Research Report no 58 Nottingham University for DfT: In depth study of work related road traffic accidents August 2005

HGV/LGVs are responsible for more fatalities than any other work vehicle type regardless of blame. In particular on rural A roads and motorways, reasons = poor observation, close following, fatigue, load problems, vehicle defects & time constraints. A quarter of fatalities are caused by LGV/HGV drivers breaking the speed limit. Road Safety Research Report no 58 see bullet above for DfT August 2005

RAC Foundation survey found that HGVs were the second biggest fear for motorists travelling on motorways. Trailgating was the highest - 2005.

It only says that HGVs/LGVs were involved rather than the actual cause of the accident, so my question is, how many crashes with an HGV or LGV involved were caused by cars or other vehicles driving badly?

And on dual carriageways, they are only able to exceed their speed limit by 6mph; I wonder how many cars are doing 6+mph above their speed limit?

 

[Failed Unit]

I support both road and rail freight.



It only says that HGVs/LGVs were involved rather than the actual cause of the accident, so my question is, how many crashes with an HGV or LGV involved were caused by cars or other vehicles driving badly?

And on dual carriageways, they are only able to exceed their speed limit by 6mph; I wonder how many cars are doing 6+mph above their speed limit?

I can't remember the last time I followed a HGV on an A-road doing 40mph, but to be honest I don't care, as everyone is travelling at a reasonable speed. (I know if we took the same attitude with trains the press would have a field day, I drive my class 317 at 125mph so I don't slow down the poor HST's / 91's behind). It cost the hauliers a fortune in extra fuel, so breaking the speed limits most be cost effective.

On an A road in good weather conditions I would much rather follow a lorry going at 56mph than a car going at 46mph.

 

[Metroland]

I support both road and rail freight.



It only says that HGVs/LGVs were involved rather than the actual cause of the accident, so my question is, how many crashes with an HGV or LGV involved were caused by cars or other vehicles driving badly?

And on dual carriageways, they are only able to exceed their speed limit by 6mph; I wonder how many cars are doing 6+mph above their speed limit?

Well it may be that it was a car drivers fault, but the question is should such large vehicles be on roads? Sure there is no increase in weight limit - yet. But several hauliers are lobbying for this. According to the several rail freight sources this will put significant amounts of freight back on the roads. I don't personally think this is in the overall public interest for the reasons I have outlined. It doesn't mean I am anti-truck (what a strange black and white term), but some things are actually better done by rail.

But going back to the original point, what would happen if railway managers decided Mark 1s were quite safe to be put back, or level crossings should be made open, or pendolinos and IC225s could run at 140mph? The press would have a field day. The railways would be made out to be unsafe and fly by night.

Here we see someone in a competing mode of transport, as usual, put two fingers up to the law after an extensive review on this subject, followed by people like the road haulage association saying 'that's a bloody good thing.' All this, of course, followed by half wits saying 'Well the railways are expensive'. Well of course they bloody are if the competition gets away with it, you lose half the traffic, and the other side doesn't have to put up with half the red tape. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Swift-Deere]

Right then, we'll take all the cars off the road too because they cause fatal crashes as well.

You do seem very anti-truck, but how many trucks drive on our roads each year without incident?
And how many people are killed when just cars crash?

If we're saying that trucks should go because they're dangerous, then cars should go first, because they cause more crashes than trucks do. Truckers are also usually much better drivers than many who are out in cars. But the truck crashes tend to get more publicity, I suppose because they are rarer and usually there's a bit more damage.


One point though, the weight isn't increasing, only the length.

Oh dear, it's time to call all lorry (drivers) dangerous killers again. It's not the vehicles that are dangerous, it's the person behind the wheel, no matter what vehicle it is.

What your basically saying, that behind the wheel of a car, I'm no danger to anyone, but as soon as I climb into a lorry (I'm licensed to drive any rigid vehicle), I'm a menace to society. It's the other way round !

Well said Guys

as a matter of fact most accidents involving Trucks are the fault of car drivers acting in a dangerous or unpredictable manner forcing the truck driver to take action which can sometimes course an accident do to the car drivers actions

 

[Oswyntail]

It is too easy to think of these things as only flitting harmlessly along motorways. However, whatever motorways they use, at each end they will need to use the other roads, and they are not suitable for these. Their length will make them almost impossible to overtake other than on multi-lane roads; despite steering rear wheels they will not be able to cope in most towns without severe disruption. There will be no reduction on infrastructure damage over standard 44-tonners.
What is needed is not more and bigger trucks, but a taxation system that means that the appropriate transport for each trip is used, with engineers designing suitable machines. Co-ordinated transport policy anyone?:roll:

 

[Failed Unit]

This is coverage from the local rag.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Undefined-Headline/article-1565901-detail/article.html

Didn't a frieght operator do their own gauge clearance test a Bassingstoke a while back saying that the press reaction was as we expected.

One of the comments is quite valid, the problem we have is that most frieght distrubution centres are no way near railways, but close to motorways. Something that isn't going to be changes as who will pay for the railway connection?

 

[David]

Blimey you do get a lot of stick on this forum for supporting rail freight instead of road freight, and high speed rail instead of domestic flights don't you?

Anyway, a few trucking facts

HGVS were twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents as cars in 2007 – Road Statistics Traffic Speeds Chart 10 p 115 2007, issued July 2008

TRL stated that when trucks are in a smash they do serious damage. HGVs in the UK account for only 6% of all vehicle-km driven but are involved in 17% of road accidents where there are fatalities – Iain Knight Commercial Motor 17th July 2008

Over 82% of HGVs exceeded their speed limit of 50 mph on dual carriageways and almost three-quarters exceeded the 40 mph limit on single carriageway non-built up roads in 2007. Source: DfT Transport Statistics Traffic Speeds Figure 3.5C for 2007 issued July 2008
Blameworthyness ratio – lorries and LGVs had the highest blame orthiness ratio of all work vehicles, over 4 times higher than buses (PCVs, taxis and emergency vehicles – Road Safety Research Report no 58 Nottingham University for DfT: In depth study of work related road traffic accidents August 2005

HGV/LGVs are responsible for more fatalities than any other work vehicle type regardless of blame. In particular on rural A roads and motorways, reasons = poor observation, close following, fatigue, load problems, vehicle defects & time constraints. A quarter of fatalities are caused by LGV/HGV drivers breaking the speed limit. Road Safety Research Report no 58 see bullet above for DfT August 2005

RAC Foundation survey found that HGVs were the second biggest fear for motorists travelling on motorways. Trailgating was the highest - 2005.

It only says that HGVs/LGVs were involved rather than the actual cause of the accident, so my question is, how many crashes with an HGV or LGV involved were caused by cars or other vehicles driving badly?

And on dual carriageways, they are only able to exceed their speed limit by 6mph; I wonder how many cars are doing 6+mph above their speed limit?

Speed limits .... By law, lorries cannot exceed 90kph (56mph) and have to have a limiter fitted. In many cases, the limiters are set to 52 or 53mph now, so they can only exceed the speed limit on dual carriage ways by a tiny amount. How many cars do you routinely see exceed speed limits compared to lorries? *

Accidents .... Lorries may be involved in a high ratio of fatal accidents, but how many of those accidents are caused by car drivers? In my experiance, it's most of them. A lorry takes more time to stop from any given speed, something most car drivers don't seem to realise.

By the way, how come HGVs have a high blame worthiness than taxis? You see them speed and take chances every day of the week, especially on a Friday/Saturday night when they all race back into a town or city center to pick up another fare!

* I don't condone speeding by the way, although I don't agree with the way the government is trying to cut speeding, as it causes more accidents IMO.

 

[Fgw+xc+swtconn]

Im scared of these things

 

[37401]

When i finally get around to learning to ride a bike, id hate to have one of those things in my way, doesnt bare thinking about riding alongside that on the motorway! with a driver falling alseep!

oh and for the record i want a proper bike, not a hairdryer

 

[starrymarkb]

You raise an interesting point here, the Bendy bus has cause problems in London with turning (and crushing cyclists).

It is a lesser reported fact that no-cyclist has been killed by a Artic in London. Its often claimed that they have killed loads, but it never happened.

Now the 40 odd Artics on the London 38 route have been replaced by some 70 deckers to provide the same capacity. So which is better?

 

[Metroland]

Twice the number of injuries though...12 cyclists killed in London this year, mostly by buses and trucks. 820 killed/seriously injured UK wide in just April-june

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ists-killed-or-hurt-on-the-roads-1815228.html

 

[Failed Unit]

It is a lesser reported fact that no-cyclist has been killed by a Artic in London. Its often claimed that they have killed loads, but it never happened.

Now the 40 odd Artics on the London 38 route have been replaced by some 70 deckers to provide the same capacity. So which is better?

I would say the decker from the point of view of the road user, the fact it takes less road space is a good thing. Look how bad Oxford street is with deckers, and how much worse it would be if they were bendy's because each bus is taking up more road space.

Likewise if you were a bus driver looking for work the deckers are better.

The transport company would say the bendy as have less buses on the road.

The difference in capacity between a decker and a bendy bus isn't that great to require that many extra buses. I can't dispute you facts here however.

Back to Denby, the point still remains that if Virgin did the same thing and said our pendo's can do 140mph so we are going to start doing it tomorrow to prove our point thier could be an outcry. The approach by Denby is wrong. Can they prove a real need for this lorry for a start? There are a lot of existing lorries running around now carrying fresh air. They may have a load from London - Manchester but all to ofter they run back empty. I don't think this lorry even if it is approved is a threat to rail frieght however. If you need a longer lorry to carry the 44tonne payload, this kind of load wouldn't suit rail. Rail prefers large quanities of dense material such as coal and steal.

 

[Metroland]

Not true, the biggest threat is to container traffic, which rail is also good at moving.

'Freightliner found that up to 66% of container traffic could be forced back onto the roads. Detailed examination of rail’s bulk freight flows by EWS in May 2007 found that up to 40% of aggregates currently carried by rail could switch to road and almost 20% of metals traffic.'

http://www.rfg.org.uk/files/e80705megatrucksleaflet.pdf

http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/NoMegaTrucks.htm

 

[royaloak]

One point though, the weight isn't increasing, only the length.

For now, how long do you think it will be (IF this monstrosity is allowed) before they start trying to raise the limit to say 65 tonnes on the pretext that it wont take up any more road space, as it is already running, we are only increasing the weight and the axle weight will only be the same as a conventional 44 tonne truck, about 8 tonnes!

Do you honestly think for 1 minute they would leave this thing with a 44 tonne limit, remember when the limit was increased from 38 tonnes to 44 tonnes for lorries running to and from railfreight terminals, and the road lobby were successful in getting the limit raised for everyone!