Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Lorry speed limit increase will kill cyclists, says Department for Transport

Government accused of putting lives at risk after raising HGV speed limit on rural roads

A government decision announced last week to raise the speed limit for lorries on single carriageway rural roads from 40 miles an hour to 50 miles an hour has been criticised by the opposition and by cycling organisations – and even the Government’s own impact assessment suggests casualties could rise by between 10 and 20 per cent.

Announcing the change in the speed limit, which is due to come into force next year, transport minister Claire Perry insisted that the higher speed limit would “cut dangerous overtaking by motorists seeking to pass slower-moving lorries in front of them", reports The Guardian.

But an impact assessment carried out by the Department for Transport (DfT) says that the higher speed limit for HGVs would lead to two or three additional fatal road traffic incidents a year and between four and nine serious ones.

Turning to whether the change would reduce the amount of dangerous overtaking, the authors said it could be a benefit but they were unable to put a figure on it "because we do not have sufficient confidence that it would occur," adding, "while overtaking manoeuvres may become less likely, they would also be performed at higher speeds and so could become more dangerous".

The assessment added that three quarters of lorry drivers are thought to break the speed limit regularly when driving on roads without speed cameras.

The DfT insisted it had examined the issue in detail before deciding to increase the speed limit, with a spokesman saying: "Road safety is a key priority and we studied both the potential for increased risk and for improved safety due to less risky overtaking before making our decision.

“We are determined to improve safety – for instance, by encouraging local authorities to lower speed limits on roads where needed, better procedures to deal with HGV drivers who drive tired, and bringing in a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving."

But shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh accused the government of putting the lives of vulnerable road users at risk.

She said: "The government has pledged to review the safety of rural roads, but these higher speed limits will make them much less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Ministers need to bring forward evidence before pushing ahead with these potentially dangerous speed increases."

Responding to a government claim that the new speed limit would save the haulage sector some £11 million a year, she added: "The main impact on the freight industry is that the government has failed to tackle the strategic road network, cancelling projects to improve roads and cutting building and maintenance budgets."

British Cycling described the move as “staggering,” while Penny Knight, head of the cycling team at the law firm Leigh Day, criticised the government for putting financial interests over people’s safety.

“It is extraordinary that the cost savings to the haulage industry are being cited as the reasons for making our roads more unsafe for all road users, not just cyclists,” she said. “Any cost savings to an industry are not worth the deaths that will result from this legislation."

Referring to the Commonwealth Games, she added: “The timing of this announcement couldn’t be worse, just when we celebrate cycling as one of our key sporting events as a nation, the Government ensures that the roads on which many of our champions train are made more unsafe."

Chris Peck, policy co-ordinator at national cyclist’s organisation CTC, pointed out that the roads where lorries will soon be permitted to travel faster than they can at the moment are the very ones that already account for a high proportion of cycling casualties.

He said: "The risk of cycling on rural single-carriageway roads is over 20 times greater than on minor urban roads, and several cyclists are killed each year – hit behind by lorries on these roads – a risk which will only increase as lorries are allowed to go faster.

“CTC believes that lorries should only be allowed to drive at higher speeds on properly engineered major roads, where adequate parallel cycling facilities exist," he added.

It also seems likely that increasing the HGV speed limits on these roads will increase the number of lorries using them, a factor that does not seem to have been accounted for in the DfT's calculations.

Drivers using GPS navigation will be more likely to be directed down single-carriageway roads by algorithms designed to shorten journey time if those roads become nominally faster.

News of the change to the speed limit was however welcomed by the Road Haulage Association (RHA) which said: "This evidence-based decision by ministers will be strongly welcomed by hauliers and their drivers. The current limit is long out-of-date and the frustration it generates causes unnecessary road safety risks."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

57 comments

Avatar
ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes

They have to listen if it's going to cost them (government) money or if a valid legal challenge is mounted. What we have with current motoring policies is a totally one sided crusade of violence against an equally entitled, more vulnerable group of the public.

In any other situation you can think of the level of harm from one group to another would be condemned, you'd have MP s lining up to be seen defending the under dog.

Can you imagine if there were five deaths a day and multiple severe injuries caused by a homophobic gang stomping about?

How about the same numbers for a racist gang? What if 5 traffic wardens per day were killed with more critically injured? Gas explosions - 5 a day etc. None of this would be tolerated.

These are the daily figures for all road users, we all drive as well in the majority of cases after all.

There is therefore something of a reasonable expectation that deaths and injuries of that magnitude in any other situation are wholly intolerable.

Why then do we permit these figures on the public highway and even go out of our way to encourage reckless drivers to stay behind the wheel? 35 points and still not banned? Why?

The fact that the vulnerable are having to pay the price with their lives because government is too weak to enforce and draft crushing new legislation must be a form of indirect persecution and given latest evidence proving lives are for sale to those with deep pockets isn't this amounting to some form of corruption?

So, how much do we have to agree to 'donate' to fund future political campaigns so we can get legislation allowing us to do something that will result in death and injury?

I simply do not believe there are no legal avenues at all, however untested they might be. It's negligence on a grand scale and its time it stopped.

Avatar
Condor flyer | 9 years ago
0 likes

Congratulations to the dick heads who have just made the roads even more dangerous. Cups of hemlock all round.

Avatar
climber | 9 years ago
0 likes

Plus a bloody big one to ironmancole

Avatar
Matt eaton | 9 years ago
0 likes

As much as I oppose the increase in speed limits I'm not sure it will actually make a jot of difference in the real world. I can count on one hand the number of times I've followed a lorry on a single-carridgeway road at 40mph. 50mph is quite common already and the 40mph limit hasn't been enforced for years. I don't expect to see lorries driving any faster than they do already.

The big problem that I have with it is that it sends the message that higher speeds are acceptable on roads shared with cyclists and pedestrians.

Avatar
notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes

I've written to my MP a few times before regarding other issues, and the reply never fails to be a fob-off. "Go away little pleb and leave government to the grown-ups" is how it reads, so I'm unsure what to do about this.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes
notfastenough wrote:

I've written to my MP a few times before regarding other issues, and the reply never fails to be a fob-off. "Go away little pleb and leave government to the grown-ups" is how it reads, so I'm unsure what to do about this.

vote for someone else.

Seriously though. MPs get all kinds of letters. I expect he fobs off the bloke that writes to him all the time complaining about the bloody cyclists as well.

What exactly do you think the powers of an MP are?

Avatar
Cyclist27 | 9 years ago
0 likes

If you look at driver websites, you will realise what we are up against. Try: www.safespeed.org.uk and www.abd.org.uk as a starter and of course a media that is fixated on speed cameras and sympathising with drivers who get speeding points. Watching Fake Britain (BBC1) 7 Aug, revealed the extent of tachograph tampering.

Avatar
ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yes, I just cannot see how this can be passed when they acknowledge it will cause more death and injury.

Can anyone on here suggest any other situation where a worst case scenario involving something as serious as death would be given the green light?

Can I get the ok from the Department for Education to flog cocaine in playgrounds as I can then afford a helicopter?

Anyone up for writing to Social Services asking to borrow some fostered children for a new business you've set up to help sex offenders learn how to behave around minors? Honestly, it'll be just fine.

How about petitioning the department dealing with agriculture to allow me to sell Napalm to farmers to burn old crops - we'll only kill a few slow moving walkers a year and perhaps lose a village or too with an uncontrolled fire - all good though as I'm buying a villa in Tuscany next month.

So, has anyone been informed that the Department for Cars has decided you're disposable to give you time to get your affairs in order? Just who do they plan to kill, which is just about the size of it with all the political claptrap aside.

Just why does a civil servant get to decide what happens with your life?

Why aren't we shouting a collective NO?!!

Avatar
stealth | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yes, ironmancole, that is exactly it!
If as an Engineer, I pass something as acceptable & it islater proven not to be & causes death, I am liable to be prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter legislation. This should apply to government too. Maybe if Ministers were held accountable they would pass more legislation that operated for the common good, as opposed to the corporate good (i.e. Profit).

Avatar
ironmancole replied to stealth | 9 years ago
0 likes

Thank you Stealth. I fail to see why the level of duty and care expected in all professions does not extend to the public highway.

Can you imagine a company going to the Building Research Establishment with a new beam they've designed and they report beforehand that due to the way it's made it will suffer catastrophic failure 1 time in 3000 but this is ok as the amount they've saved in the manufacturing process will save the industry millions of pounds per year?

In any other scenario what the government has just approved would be shot down in disgust and leave those responsible open to all kind of serious charges.

This is where this site needs legal support. Just why is a government department supposedly there to act in the best interests of the people with safety a number one priority actually allowed to approve/propose legislation that they acknowledge will increase death and will most certainly result in a big increase in extremely serious injuries?

Since when were individuals in government above the law, which is what we appear to have going on here?

This needs to be challenged by a well funded legal team on behalf of cyclists, walkers, horse riders and any motorist who is unhappy at the thought of having cars overtaking towards them at even more reckless speeds due to lorries travelling faster.

Until personal liability for such reckless legislation is a realistic prospect who knows what will be approved next. How about letting motorbikes use shared cycle & walkways? Dangerous? Of course, but if no-one gives a toss things like this will continue to happen.

Given the obvious disregard for life the Department for Cars (sorry, Transport) shows for life surely it's only a matter of time before TV companies pay the Road Minister off at lunch to allow cars to be fitted with widescreens so the driver can watch movies.

Of course this would be defended with guff like 'The responsible motorist knows watching a film whilst driving would be unlawful and very dangerous, so we are confident that this won't happen and therefore the approval of such devices in vehicles doesn't represent a significant threat to road safety'.

We need a legal challenge on this, must be a breach of human rights and goes against all sense when they're supposed to be concentrating on improving safety, not rubber stamping more funerals.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes
ironmancole wrote:

Thank you Stealth. I fail to see why the level of duty and care expected in all professions does not extend to the public highway.

Can you imagine a company going to the Building Research Establishment with a new beam they've designed and they report beforehand that due to the way it's made it will suffer catastrophic failure 1 time in 3000 but this is ok as the amount they've saved in the manufacturing process will save the industry millions of pounds per year?

In any other scenario what the government has just approved would be shot down in disgust and leave those responsible open to all kind of serious charges.

This is where this site needs legal support. Just why is a government department supposedly there to act in the best interests of the people with safety a number one priority actually allowed to approve/propose legislation that they acknowledge will increase death and will most certainly result in a big increase in extremely serious injuries?

Since when were individuals in government above the law, which is what we appear to have going on here?

This needs to be challenged by a well funded legal team on behalf of cyclists, walkers, horse riders and any motorist who is unhappy at the thought of having cars overtaking towards them at even more reckless speeds due to lorries travelling faster.

Until personal liability for such reckless legislation is a realistic prospect who knows what will be approved next. How about letting motorbikes use shared cycle & walkways? Dangerous? Of course, but if no-one gives a toss things like this will continue to happen.

Given the obvious disregard for life the Department for Cars (sorry, Transport) shows for life surely it's only a matter of time before TV companies pay the Road Minister off at lunch to allow cars to be fitted with widescreens so the driver can watch movies.

Of course this would be defended with guff like 'The responsible motorist knows watching a film whilst driving would be unlawful and very dangerous, so we are confident that this won't happen and therefore the approval of such devices in vehicles doesn't represent a significant threat to road safety'.

We need a legal challenge on this, must be a breach of human rights and goes against all sense when they're supposed to be concentrating on improving safety, not rubber stamping more funerals.

I know that there are a few bright legal minds on this forum. has anyone got any advice on the practicalities of a legal challenge?

Avatar
jestriding | 9 years ago
0 likes

Coming from New Zealand where we really only have rural single carriageways with no hard shoulder to speak of and a speed limit for trucks of 90 kph (55.9 mph); a reduction to 50 mph would be quite nice.

Of cause we have a road toll of 7.4 per 100,000 vs the UKs at 3.5 per 100,000

Avatar
ironmancole | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yet more proof that the democratic political system millions of our country people died to defend as part of our freedom is actually a poorly disguised dictatorship for sale to those with deep pockets.

I suggest every cyclist and walker using rural roads already having to risk their lives every time they venture out issues a warning to the government that should they be killed or effectively have their lives ended through catastrophic injury that their bereaved families will be rejecting the pittance offered in 'compensation' and will instead be seeking unlimited damages for wilfull negligence.

This is a repeat of the Ford cases in the states where the manufacturer knew of a potentially fatal defect but avoided a recall as it was cheaper to pay compensation to the family than do the right thing.

Far as I'm concerned this is the same, someone has run some numbers and decided our deaths are acceptable as the hauliers will still be quids in.

There is no other way to look at this, plain example of total negligence and all from a government insisting it supports cycling.

What will do about it? Probably nothing.

Avatar
BertYardbrush | 9 years ago
0 likes

The cost of a road fatality is £1.8M the cost of a serious accident is £215k. 3 deaths & 9 serious accidents = £5.835M
Savings to road haulage industry £11M
It would require an extra 3 deaths above that, total = 6, to make the increase in speed limit not cost effective.

Avatar
Sustransoftie | 9 years ago
0 likes

FFS...  2

and what will we all do about it?

 105

Avatar
Kadenz | 9 years ago
0 likes

Another reason for me not to vote for the Conservatives and Lib Dems at the next election.

Avatar
Sedgepeat | 9 years ago
0 likes

But it will save far more lives from the pure economics to be spent on NHS and emergency & rescue services. It will also undoubtedly reduce overtake attempts that result in multi casualty crashes too. With all due respect, no-one is forced to cycle among infrastructure and big essential machines. Don't get angry with me making a valid observation now.:-))

Avatar
IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Have I wandered onto petrolhead .com by mistake? Do you lot actually ride bikes and if you do where because you appear not need access to public roads.

This change is presented by a minister as improving safety whilst the DFT says it will cost lives, so if it wasnt requested by the DFT who did request it?

The answer is of course the transport industry because it will reduce their costs by opening up loads of new options as effective routes without the need to pay for actual haulage infrastructure.

The losers will be the people who live near these roads that will now get increased traffic and who may otherwise have used those roads but will now make the assessment they are too risky or those who continue to use them and end up dead.

For what? to get some more junk into the pound shops and put a few extra noughts on the bank balance of some tax exile cretin with a pad well away from any traffic.

Avatar
northstar replied to IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes
IanW1968 wrote:

Have I wandered onto petrolhead .com by mistake? Do you lot actually ride bikes and if you do where because you appear not need access to public roads.

This change is presented by a minister as improving safety whilst the DFT says it will cost lives, so if it wasnt requested by the DFT who did request it?

The answer is of course the transport industry because it will reduce their costs by opening up loads of new options as effective routes without the need to pay for actual haulage infrastructure.

The losers will be the people who live near these roads that will now get increased traffic and who may otherwise have used those roads but will now make the assessment they are too risky or those who continue to use them and end up dead.

For what? to get some more junk into the pound shops and put a few extra noughts on the bank balance of some tax exile cretin with a pad well away from any traffic.

Avatar
adriank999 | 9 years ago
0 likes

My point was that not all roads are the same, when you move out of the urban environment onto country lanes they are often national speed limit when the proper speed for some of these roads should be nearer 20 mph whilst some B roads are quite capable of 60 mph or more. As to deaths, unfortunately as soon as traffic moves accidents happen, so what we end up with is compromise between death rates and traffic movement. Speed limits and speed cameras are usually a cop out from engineering roads properly to be safe. Unfortunately on many roads there just isn’t enough room for a cyclist and two lanes of traffic so again we have a compromise. Round here we have inexplicable speed limits, some should be increased and some decreased but the logic of application defies understanding.

I came back from Wales recently and they have a shared use path alongside one of the dual carriageways, the cycle lane was barely 18 inches wide, that shows you the competence of traffic engineers.

As to reducing speed limits why not bring back the man with the red flag and reduce the country to a standstill?

Personally I don’t mind a car overtaking me at 50 mph if he leaves a good separation but I get pissed off with the driver in the 20 mph zone squeezing past with little more than elbow room. Speed limits are not the answer, lots of traffic trained police are, but they have been all but eliminated in favour of cameras that cannot catch dangerous and drunk drivers.

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

The current speed limits on rural roads aren't even enforced so no chance that any change for HGVs will be.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 9 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

I guess that there isn’t much difference to being hit at 40 or 60, the result would be very similar.

I suggest there is a big difference between 40 and 60. First, travelling at 40, you have much more time to avoid a collision in the first place, and second, the difference in impact in a crash is significant.

Avatar
adriank999 | 9 years ago
0 likes

I use to drive for a living some many years ago when the roads were regularly policed and truck drivers stuck to 40mph with the result that there would be long queues. The number of near misses I saw from frustrated motorists trying to overtake was incredible. For every road the safest speed is the 85th percentile but more often speed limits are adjusted for political reasons not based on the science. For cyclists to ask for all rural roads to be reduced to 40mph is very selfish and impractical, it would be much better to educate drivers but then in reality 85 percent of drivers are average to good and the odd 15% are idiots who will never be educated. I guess that there isn’t much difference to being hit at 40 or 60, the result would be very similar.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to adriank999 | 9 years ago
0 likes
adriank999 wrote:

I use to drive for a living some many years ago when the roads were regularly policed and truck drivers stuck to 40mph with the result that there would be long queues. The number of near misses I saw from frustrated motorists trying to overtake was incredible. For every road the safest speed is the 85th percentile but more often speed limits are adjusted for political reasons not based on the science. For cyclists to ask for all rural roads to be reduced to 40mph is very selfish and impractical, it would be much better to educate drivers but then in reality 85 percent of drivers are average to good and the odd 15% are idiots who will never be educated. I guess that there isn’t much difference to being hit at 40 or 60, the result would be very similar.

Your argument appears to be, essentially, that because cars are driven by selfish impatient gits who hate the idea of waiting 10 seconds, the speed limits should be increased until these cretins can go at the maximum possible speed. And if a few cyclists get killed that's just a shame, we should not be so selfish as to value continuing to live over their precious time.

Surely a better idea would be to reduce the ability of cars to go quickly - it cannot be that hard to do.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to adriank999 | 9 years ago
0 likes
adriank999 wrote:

I use to drive for a living some many years ago when the roads were regularly policed and truck drivers stuck to 40mph with the result that there would be long queues. The number of near misses I saw from frustrated motorists trying to overtake was incredible. For every road the safest speed is the 85th percentile but more often speed limits are adjusted for political reasons not based on the science. For cyclists to ask for all rural roads to be reduced to 40mph is very selfish and impractical, it would be much better to educate drivers but then in reality 85 percent of drivers are average to good and the odd 15% are idiots who will never be educated. I guess that there isn’t much difference to being hit at 40 or 60, the result would be very similar.

Actually the more time I spend on these sort of roads, both on the bike and in the car, the more I tend to think that 40mph is a sensible limit. I don't perceive that my journey times would be much longer in the car and for any extensive journey I would inevitably be using motorways or dual-caridgeways for the bulk of it anyway (OK, maybe this is not applicable in some areas). For cyclists there is no doubt that the speed differential between even a fast rider and a car is vast and I'm confident deturs many from taking to two wheels. A 40mph limit would also detur dangerous overtaking of lorries, which seems to be the key argument in favour of letting lorries go faster.

Finally, take the cycle lobyists' request for 40mph limits with a pinch of salt. It's fair to say that they are hoping for a compromise, perhaps splitting the difference at 50mph. If they were asking for 50mph the compomise would be 55mph and this level of change would not be considered worth implimenting.

Avatar
dp24 replied to adriank999 | 9 years ago
0 likes
adriank999 wrote:

in reality 85 percent of drivers are average to good and the odd 15% are idiots who will never be educated

It isn't logically possible for 85% of drivers to be 'average to good'.

Avatar
IanW1968 | 9 years ago
0 likes

This is not a government.

Its a bunch of chancers like Grant Shapps funded by the likes of Ashcroft and his Belize based companies to get in power.

To be clear, their not politicians corrupted by power, the only reason they exist as politicians is to do the bidding of their paymasters.

Avatar
banzicyclist2 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Crazy government in the pocket of the motoring lobby! 50 mph is going to kill a lot of people.

60 mph on the motorways I can understand, but speeds need to be kept at a safe level for everyone on single carriage way roads.

I despair of the government with their mixed messages, road safety this, and everyone needs to be more active that, then they come up with this sort of thing. Makes no sense to me!  40

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

Having long suspected that Government and LAs don't give a shit about the safety and welfare of cyclists, this confirms it without a shred of doubt.

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

Fucking madness!

Pages

Latest Comments