Cycling UK criticises imminent Department for Transport plan for "longer and more hazardous lorries" on Britain's roads

Has anyone taken into account the cost of repairing additional damage to the roads caused by these heavier longer lorries? I would have thought they also need to survey all bridges, especially older ones, to see if additional strengthening works are required. There are some historic bridges that regularly get struck by lorries such as the one in this article. An even larger lorry would never get across it. https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/another-lorry-gets-stuck-tiver...

How about getting some of those in DoT who came up with this onto a bicycle and have an 18.55m monster overtake them with a pedestrian refuge coming up. They'll soon change their thinking - maybe even shorten the maximum length

A bit conflicted on this one. My gut reaction is that bigger lorries on the roads is not a great idea, for all the reasons outlined here. But I imagine it could be possible that this results in improved safety overall if it leads to fewer HGVs on the road and that outweighs any increase in the likelihood of additional and/or more severe accidents (if there is an increase). I note on the latter the article suggests fewer accidents involving these in the trial, but can't help wondering if those in the trial would (even if only subconsciously) be more inclined to drive safely. The companies that participated in the trial are also probably at the 'better' end of the road safety spectrum for HGV operators. Some of that also might have been brought about by vulnerable road users altering their behaviour (ie. us riding in a more defensive manner).

I note the article suggests this was an 11 year trial which I assume is erroneous, which makes me wonder what else is incorrectly reported here. I'm also sceptical of the congestion claims, that's not how things work (including the DfT's demand modelling) - reduced generalised costs lead to increases in traffic, including from hauliers. Add that to the lower costs of operation and you could well end up with very similar amounts of larger HGVs on the road.  

If I were Cycling UK I'd put in an FOI to see DfT's business case and appraisal summary table etc...

The article says that operators are not legally required, to "put in place extra safety checks including driver training and scheduling, record keeping, training for transport managers and key staff, and loading of LSTs".

This is absolutely not true. Like any other business, logistics operators are absolutely required (iaw Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974) to demonstrate that health and safety risk (including to the public) has been reduced as far as reasonably practicable. Appropriate safety controls to reduce the quantum of risk absolutely should include the training of personnel.

It will be interesting to see how the increase in the quantum of risk is considered acceptable. Operators have demonstrated for decades that using shorter lorries absolutely is 'practicable'.

I for one will be writing to my MP.

"a near £1.4 billion boost to the haulage industry and driving economic growth"

It's funny how these things are sold to us as miracle cures for various things when they simply are not.

Are they printing extra money now as well? Or does it grow on trees? Where is that 1.4 billion quid going to appear from and whose pockets will it go into? It's a lot more than the active travel budget that has been slashed, because we all know that is a waste of time and money and helps no-one.

An extra 2m doesn't sound like much but that's going to mean they use even more of the road on a right hand bend, at a roundabout or junction; while an overtake (e.g. of a cyclist or group of cyclists) will mean they're on the other side of the road for even longer... presuming they don't cut back in early because, well, we all know that too many people don't give a f**k about cyclists, who shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

This is going to sound like a "I am not racist, but..." kind of comment. 

Does this include allowing foreign vehicles of increased length?

Currenty the main road through us is shut for who knows how long, due to a burst water main causing a huge collapse. This has diverted HGV traffic, but the big issue has been, largely foreign lorries, not understanding the diversion signs and getting stuck in back roads through the town that were never designed for HGVs.

I see the completely overlooked issue of actually being able to manouvre longer vehicles in many narrow twisting roads hasnt been mentioned. 

I see so many trucks having to take extremely wide turns for some junctions and the extra length is only going to create more issues. If the current length HGVs are struggling to get through some inner city roads how the hell are longer ones meant to manage? They should be reserved for A-B long haul where motorways and duel carriageways are the only roads they occupy. They have no place on single lane roads. Having these anywhere near populated areas is a recipe for disaster. 

Why does one get the impression that virtually ALL current politics is exactly the opposite of what actually would need to happen? It boggles the mind...

Quote:

In an 11-year trial the DfT says the longer semi-trailers (LST) were involved in 61 per cent fewer personal injury collisions than conventional lorries and urged operators to "put extra safety checks and training in place".

I wonder if that's because the drivers cannot take these extended HGVs into built up areas where there are - you know - people.

I mean, we read all the time about normal sized HGVs getting stuck, so I can't see an operator wanting to take their extended HGV into a village.  Roads were not built for HGVs, after all...

I wonder if there will be an interesting knock-on effect:
Drivers misjudging the length of the lorry they are overtaking, meaning they are on the wrong side of the road for longer.