Stop the trials of Longer Lorries - e-petition

[Steady rider]

This is provided separate for a quick access to information on opposing the longer lorries trials.

e-petition at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20022 please sign to enable a full debate in Parliament. Please circulate details to groups or people you know.

--------------
Stop the trials of Longer Lorries.

The Government has allowed a 10-year trial of longer lorries leading to increased safety concerns and making urban traffic flow more difficult. The Government gave the go-ahead for a trial of longer semi-trailer vehicles - up to 18.55m (60ft) long.

The longer lorries will make it more difficult for other traffic to enter the flow of traffic at slip roads and cause concern when overtaking cyclists. The DfT’s own analysis found that the threat from certain slow manoeuvres could increase by as much as 9%. Cyclists are particularly at risk from lorries engaged in such manoeuvres, which from 2005 to 2009, accounted for 40% of fatal cycle crashes involving an articulated lorry.

The longer lorries are not suited to the smaller towns and villages across the UK and the claims made for their benefit are in question. HGVs have double the accident rate of light goods vehicles in urban areas. The trials should be stopped and alternative approaches more suitable to the UK, considered.

---------------
http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/PressRe ... 6-2011.htm

Government accused of misleading public on road safety threat of longer lorries.

A coalition of organisations including CTC, Friends of the Earth, Sustrans, Road Peace and Living Streets have produced a joint statement on the issue of using rail transport for freight rather than lorries.

--------------

Deaths of cyclists in London 1985-92: the hazards of road traffic, BMJ. http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6943/1534.full


“In inner London, in relation to their traffic volume, heavy goods vehicles are estimated to cause 30 times as many cyclists' deaths as cars.”

--------------
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/ ... t_0206.pdf


In 2004, 367 collisions between HGVs and cyclists resulted in 22 riders being killed, 79 seriously injured and a further 262 injured. Although only 2% of cyclists casualties occurred in collisions with HGVs, this resulted in 22% of cyclist deaths.

-------------
Where as heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) make up 3 % of the EU vehicle fleet, but give rise to 14 % of fatal collisions, amounting to more than 4 000 annual fatalities in the 27 Member States of the European Union.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get ... anguage=EN

---------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists
Experts call for ban on HGVs in Britain's cities to protect cyclists
Heavy goods vehicles involved in 43% of London's cycling deaths

---------------
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Ar ... &mid=13641

-------------

http://www.accident-compensation-inform ... ident.html

-------------

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/longer-lorries

-------------
The consultation had 318 responses, 41 in favour and 253 opposed. about 13% WERE IN FAVOUR and these included businesses with a vested interest in enhancing their profits. Small and medium sized businesses where included in the survey and the Minister had links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond

He has had many business interests including house building and property, manufacturing, healthcare and oil and gas
http://skynewstranscripts.co.uk/transcript.asp?id=714

ADAM BOULTON:
I just want to ask you finally about this whole question of MPs with second jobs. You have had outside business interests haven’t you?

PHILIP HAMMOND:
I have, yes.

-----------------
TRL report PPR 285 page 150 (168/332) shows that the accident rate for the existing longer draw bar combination, (18.75m length permitted) is 3 to 4 times higher than most other HGV type of vehicles.
http://www.nomegatrucks.eu/deu/service/ ... -study.pdf

[Steady rider]

Obviously an extremely sad event on the M5 with lives lost and HGVs involved.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s_rss_feed

The media report fog may have played a part.

Assuming slow driving conditions, it appears that the braking distance for fully loaded HGV’s may be longer than for cars.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... stems.aspx

Note slight incline, dry conditions

The Highway Code refers to braking distances of 14m at 30 mph, plus thinking distance of 9m, total 23m. The above information shows for a 42 ton loaded vehicle a braking distance of 27m, assuming an extra 9m for thinking, total 36m.

One question the investigators may ask is - in slower driving condition does the risk proportionally increase due to the difference in stopping distance from cars to HGVs?

Asking the right questions now may help to avoid similar grave loss of life in the future.

[wakou222]

Yawn. These lorries will not make any difference to cyclists lives. At all. Find something else to campaign about. Children are starving; people are going blind from preventable diseases; girls are being trafficked in to YOUR home town to a life of prostitution and misery. Protesting about an extra metre on a lorry which only uses motorways is really not a good use of your time and energy. Go for a ride on your bike.

[Phil_Lee]

Yawn. These lorries will not make any difference to cyclists lives. At all. Find something else to campaign about. Children are starving; people are going blind from preventable diseases; girls are being trafficked in to YOUR home town to a life of prostitution and misery. Protesting about an extra metre on a lorry which only uses motorways is really not a good use of your time and energy. Go for a ride on your bike.

No difference to cyclists lives?
Only to shorten them. In a particularly grisly and agonising manner.
Only use motorways?
No - they will be driven into and out of towns. The operators can't load or unload them on motorways, so they will drive them on the same roads as everyone else to get to and from their warehouses, shops, factories, and distribution centres.
Just like they do with all the other articulated lorries.
And just as other lorries have an appalling record for killing and injuring cyclists, so these will, except they will almost certainly have a WORSE record, as they have greater tail-swing and cut-across on corners - the very places where lorries already have a bad record for killing cyclists.

By all means campaign against the other things you mention, although I can't see a single one which is of particular relevance to cycle campaigning. But don't expect support on a cycling forum for an anti-cycling campaign platform.
Just because you are as ignorant as Philip Hammond is no reason to disparage others who do have a sense of outrage at the way these atrocities have been perpetrated on the public with no notice taken of the "consultation" that was carried out beforehand (and in which the only supportive comments were form those who will profit from putting money before peoples lives).

It is a matter of simple geometry - the roads are not designed for lorries this big.
Unfortunately Philip Hammond is apparently innumerate to the extent that even when it was demonstrated to him with models, he still refused to accept reality, and deliberately mislead the House in his statement on the subject.

No doubt our armed forces are trembling at the thought of the damage he is capable of doing in his new empire if not, they'll find out soon enough that he has a record of putting business profits ahead of lives, and his latest appointment gives even greater opportunities for indulging this particular character deficit.

[Steady rider]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gl ... e-15386973

http://www.wincanton.co.uk/about-us/our-customers/

Wincanton provides supply chain solutions for customers across a vast range of market sectors

Many of the customers, Tesco etc are located in towns and cities, so cyclists will be directly exposed to the threat from longer vehicles.

It is heading in the wrong direction. In about 1960, there were about 2 million vehicles, today about 25 million is it, including 0.5 HGVs?

With population growth we could find 40 million vehicles and 700,000 HGVs, finding a better direction should be the aim if you want cycling conditions to improve. A transfer from road to rail could be one aspect.

[hexhome]

The problem with such calls to action is that emotive language isn't always accurate and helpful. I, like most people would love to see less motor vehicle traffic on our roads. I hate cycling amongst motor vehicle traffic, but have little choice if I wish to use my favourite method of transport.

As long as we continue to shop at supermarkets and pass over buying local produce, lorries will become an increasing feature of modern life.

wakou222s post was inaccurate and in my opinion, offensive. Only half of the trial group will have an increase of 1 metre. The rest will increase by 2.05 metres. The turning circle will remain the same as current legislation. My personal opinion as a driver is that they will have very little impact on safety either way.

I believe that training is the best way of improving safety. Generally, HGV drivers (LGV in modern language) are better trained and skilled in roadcraft than most road users. Many however will have little bicycle specific knowledge. New legislation is in place where LGV drivers have to spend 1 day in a classroom every year. Bicycle specific training is an optional course which may be taken. I believe that we should campaign to make this subject compulsory. Many companies, Cemex is an example, carry out this training themselves.

Whilst my general assertion is that LGV drivers are better behaved towards cyclists, there are always exceptions. Lorry versus cycle is always going to be bad news! We as cyclists must also play our part. There are many occasions when driving an LGV, I have to bite my tongue at the behaviour of some cyclists. I am patient when cyclist come up the inside of my truck when I'm waiting (and signalling) to turn left, but I can understand the annoyance that other drivers express. No lorry driver wants to have an accident, apart from the human cost it affects our livelihoods. The most common frustration though is in urban constricted roads, when cyclists catch up at red lights (often ignoring them) and then we have to attempt a stressful overtake all over again. I know that it's annoying for cyclists as well, and it might be worth considering letting the lorry get ahead and clear!

At the end of the day, longer lorries will not contribute to road safety so by all means campaign against them. My plea is that there are realistic goals to campaign for that will contribute to road safety. My personal choices are; 1, Better training. 2, 20mph urban speed limits and whilst it doesn't effect cyclists, 3, No increase in the 70mph limit - the speed differential between trucks and cars is dangerous enough already.

[Malaconotus]

Find something else to campaign about. Children are starving; people are going blind from preventable diseases; girls are being trafficked in to YOUR home town to a life of prostitution and misery.

All these things are worth campaiging about, but road traffic collisons are a fast-growing global public health emergency, with 1,300,000 people a year killed, the majority of whom are vulnerable road users. The WHO predict that by 2020 deaths from road traffic will overtake deaths from Aids and malaria and road traffic will become the leading cause of life years lost. The bigger the lorries, the more people will be killed or maimed.

[Steady rider]

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... stems.aspx
Braking distance at 27 m.
Appendix 1

Iveco tractor and trailer Laden* 42 tonnes (ABS) 27.00m

Braking distance at 27 m, I added 9m for thinking time, to give a stopping distance of 36m compared with the Highway code’s information of 23m.

When cars are braking hard due to whatever reason, if HGVs (loaded) are close behind then there is an added risk of collision.

http://web.iveco.com/uk/collections/cat ... ochure.pdf

The Stralis AS3 and AS Super3 boast optional
cutting-edge on-board devices.The concealed
satellite navigation system, for example,
is intuitive and shows the fastest way to reach
any destination.The vehicle also offers
state-of-the-art active safety features.The 4x2
tractor range, for example, can be fitted with
an ESP (Electronic Stability Control) system.
This device guarantees stability under
any driving condition controlling vehicle
movement without driver intervention thereby
making the vehicle easier to manage
under emergency situations.
The Iveco Research and Development Centre
has worked tirelessly to create a large range
of systems to support the driver, which may be
combined with the ESP.
Hill Holder, a device available on versions
with EuroTronic gearboxes see pg 15, allows
easy, safe hill starts under all gradient and load
conditions by preventing the vehicle from rolling
back for a few seconds during hill starts.
Lane DepartureWarning System, an optional
feature that acoustically notifies the driver when
the vehicle strays from the lane without
the directional indicators being operated.
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) helps the
driver to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in
front by automatically operating in sequence the
engine brake, the Intarder and the service brake.
For missions over arduous routes, the Stralis AS3
and AS Super3 may be equipped with
a second-generation ZF Intarder.

One question to consider is will the sales material provided with HGVs reflect the overall safety aspects or give drivers a false sense of security? It should be telling drivers about their braking/stopping distance compared with other vehicles, loaded and unloaded and for various driving conditions. Probably the Highway Code should also be providing this information.

With the LGVs being allowed they will carry more goods, plus their basic weight is increased due to the extensions plus steering for rear wheels, if provided. There stopping distances in various weather conditions should be detailed as part of the public consultation and discussion. Clearly the trials should be stopped and all of these aspects investigated.

[hexhome]

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/hgv-truck-braking-systems.aspx
With the LGVs being allowed they will carry more goods, plus their basic weight is increased due to the extensions plus steering for rear wheels, if provided. There stopping distances in various weather conditions should be detailed as part of the public consultation and discussion. Clearly the trials should be stopped and all of these aspects investigated.

Whilst your basic point that LGVs require a greater braking distance is correct, your evidence is flawed. The fact stated above is incorrect. There is to be no overall weight increase in the current trial. The tests carried out at the Defence School of Transport, were mostly on military vehicles which would not be directly comparable with modern LGVs on road tyres. The Iveco test was carried out at MIRA on a downhill slope.

All this said, your premise is entirely correct. It has always been the case. LGV braking is far superior now to even 10 years ago, but braking distances will still be greater than a well maintained car at the same speed. LGV driver training includes a great deal of practical and theory instruction on this, although inexplicably, the requirement to carry out a 'controlled' stop has been removed from the LGV and PCV test. Lorry drivers don't in my experience read truck brochures, and even if they did, they would probably be focusing on other areas of the vehicle. How many of us bought a car or a bike on the basis of it's braking performance!

I don't see how this fact is pertinent to a campaign against 'Longer Lorries', it seems to be more of a rant about lorries. This is not unreasonable, but I would suggest, impracticable. Lorries and bicycles are here to stay. We have to learn to live with this fact. This is in my view, a far more valuable way to spend our time and energy.

[Steady rider]

I was considering the load may on average be higher than shorter vehicles and the basic vehicle weight, unloaded, will in fact be higher. So if the vehicle is returning empty the weight will be higher than a shorter vehicle. The basic 44 ton limit still applies but in practice the average weight may be higher or it certainly seems that way to me.

[hexhome]

That is of course possible, and certainly the unladen weight will probably be higher. The nature of supermarket distribution increases the number of unladen and part loaded trucks. It may therefore have a very small increase in risk as you correctly state.

My point is that as society stands, there is little chance of preventing the long standing rise of road traffic. Trucks and cars are getting larger and faster. Crash avoidance features, whilst hugely important have all tended to be of the 'passive' type. They seek to minimise the impact of a crash rather than work to preventing it. Better visibility and mirror design has of course helped in the role of prevention, but driver training has been left behind.

There have been steps taken. High risk vehicle drivers such as motorcyclists, lorry drivers and bus drivers, now have to take much more training than previously. Surprisingly little has been done to address the issues affecting cyclists. There will always be preventable tragedies, I believe more should be done to reduce the number. All vehicle drivers should have bicycle awareness training as a compulsory. I would also like to see more done to make crashes socially unacceptable. Imagine someone you know saying that they had crashed. We tend to think 'oh, how unfortunate'. Perhaps we should be thinking more on the lines of 'you should have taken more care'. It is peer pressure rather than legislation which has reduced drink driving. Perhaps it could do the same for collisions?

[Steady rider]

The UK road accident fatality rate, 2010, 1850 from about 61 million, about 3 per 100,000 people. In the USA about 11

To make further improvements probably requires careful consideration, lower drink drive limit to 0.05 is obvious but the drinks industry hold that back.

25 mph limits, inner London, could be tried, roughly 1 minute extra to cross the congestion zone.

The longer lorries are there for more profit and wrapped up in suitable supporting documents. It has not been given careful consideration in some areas.

below is part of one TRL report

Increases in weight need to be accompanied with increases in brake torque capacity (Fancher and Campbell, 2002). If it is assumed that a B-double or a road train has the same ultimate braking performance as a standard tractor and semi-trailer combination (for this example a deceleration of 6m/s² has been used) then a longer response time results in a significant increase in stopping distance. Figure 50 shows that if a standard vehicle has a reaction time of 0.6 seconds (i.e. it reached a deceleration of 6m/s² in 0.6seconds) then it would stop (from an initial speed of 50mile/h) in 47.6m.

the B-double is not part of the changes but it just shows lorries with about twice the stopping distance of cars may be running around, Highway Code 23 m for cars stopping distance (30mph - roughly 48km/hr)

Each HGV type vehicle should have stopping distance information displayed in the cab, loaded and unloaded, I assume this is not provided from reading some of these reports.

[hexhome]

Braking information is not provided and I'm not sure how it could be presented in any meaningful way. The problem with such information is that it could never be comprehensive and in any case no more meaningful than the back cover of the highway code. It is always a variable, never a constant. Your general point about LGV driver knowledge of brake performance is a very good one. There is a solution in place, but it doesn't include in cab information. There does have to be in cab information about vehicle dimensions, so your proposal wouldn't be unreasonable.

Basic driver training is normally carried out on unladen vehicles. Certainly the main road test carried out by a DOT Senior Examiner, must be taken with an unladen vehicle. The first time that a new LGV driver might carry out a controlled emergency stop whilst fully laden, may very well be when it is needed most. I can certainly confirm that the braking distance of a fully laden artic is longer than most other road users realise (your previous evidence suggesting 4 times the distance that a car would take may be a little pessimistic, but not that far off). I base this on the assumption that most of them wouldn't attempt common manoeuvres such as pulling close in front of trucks and then braking for an exit, if they were aware of this. Legislation has been passed which requires all holders of vocational licenses to undertake 7 hours of training per year if they wish to drive professionally (includes C1 and D1 licence holders). The minimum requirement for this training includes braking performance and driver behaviour. More information here http://www.drivercpc.info/pdf/Periodic_ ... _Jan09.pdf

[Steady rider]

I think twice the stopping distance of cars is probably near the mark in some circumstances.

I was thinking along the lines that each vehicle is tested periodcally and a display provided, something like below.

....................Test results - Braking /Stopping distances , date………….
speed.............. 30 mph... 40mph... 50mph
Fully loaded........ Xm....... Ym...... Zm
Empty.............. Am ...... Bm...... Cm
results based on ........

'Stopping' may be better to provide than 'Braking'
May need changing format layout

On reflection the above may be time consuming and probably not welcome.

The manufactures could provide the info based on standard trailers and checked by DfT etc
if the ratio X to A or Y to B etc caused concern, that could be looked at.

It would just provide a bit of potentially useful info for the driver without having to look for it in manuals etc
High tech solutions at a cost could also be considered.

Stability testing may be more complicated and the longer trailers may detract in some aspects, braking hard and not in a straight line.

[Phil_Lee]

That may be possible for rigid vehicles, but articulated ones will have different braking performance depending on what trailer is being towed.
In my HGV days I had a VERY scary experience when a load sensing valve on a trailer that I'd taken out empty to be loaded (to the maximum 38 tonnes, in those days) proved on my return to provide no increase in braking over it's empty setting. Getting pushed down the sliproad off the M25 at South Mimms with the trailer trying to overtake me is not something I will ever be likely to forget!
There was absolutely no way of knowing about this failure on the trailer's braking system until I was in the position of needing more brakes than I had - it's a limiting valve, so performed completely normally up to the point that it had stuck - the amount of braking that can by used on an empty trailer without the wheels locking. That isn't very much compared to what you need with an extra 25 tonnes in there. My overall stopping distance under those conditions would have been something like 10 times what a car can achieve.

Obviously, that is a situation that would be far outside normal operational limits, but it underlines the fact that nothing in the tractor unit can predict how the trailer brakes can be expected to perform, and that the trailer brakes are as much of a variable as those on the driving and steering axles.

Maybe some standard could be set for an interface between tractor and trailer for a computerised brake monitoring system, that could give a real-time display of stopping distance in the current configuration. It wouldn't be simple, by any means.
Requiring driver testing to be done both empty and loaded to MGVW would be a start though.
Along with requiring cycle awareness training - which has been shown to be extremely successful where it has been carried out (Cemex springs to mind).