CTC urges cyclists to write to MPs and oppose plans for longer lorries

Our narrow streets (particularly in towns like the one I live in) are simply not appropriate for lorries of the size that we currently have. If anything they should be trying to reduce the size of lorries. There needs to be a drastic rethink in this country of how to get goods from A to B. And longer lorries is definitely not the answer.

One point that was missed is many years ago when the weights went up the governemnt along with the rha wanted to build/encourage distribution hubs for trucks carrying various goods onto smaller vehicles by and large these have been implemented but there are not enough of them, the point is we will still see trucks down small roads because the customer wants their out of season fruit etc.

What does cause more concern is the increasing size of agricultural vehicles and the machines they tow ive had these things cut in too close for comfort, they should be trained to a better degree in my opinion.

One point overlooked in this post are the pictures of the trucks at the top of the page ! So easy at cursory glance to miss the difference in length but as Ciaran points out those two metres make a lot of difference in heavy traffic where the truck driver is challenged with a multitude of problems !

The pressure to introduce these trucks is because they exist in Europe and no doubt the operators want to utilise them in YOUR backyard given the opportunity . Well motorway is what they use 99% of their journey so that is what they should be allowed ! Given that there are areas only accesible by "A routes" then they should have a pilot vehicle to guide them to their destination IF it is a situaton where these monstrosities must use single lane routes rather than multi lane / dual carriageways .

Regardless of " BUY LOCAL " campaigns the Supermarket chains will continue to see " PROFIT " in importing goods to the detriment of ALL ! Frankly if Mr Tesco or Mr Aldi could find a way of closing these markets you can bet that they would do so to " SAVE YOU MONEY "!

This comment added to my blog !

Having experience of driving buses has taught me one thing. There are plenty of roads out there where you can't even get a single decker bus down, and these are smaller than the trucks available now. (Quite extraordinarily, the Tesco distribution store near me did not make it's entrance wide enough as can be witnessed by the numerous scratches on the kerb stones)

So the end result of bigger lorries is more disruption when they get stuck. If only we had the foresight of the Swiss and move freight onto rail. When the Gotthard base tunnel is finished no freight will transit Switzerland by road.

On the subject of stupid passing, I witness far too many drivers try to pass trucks on roundabouts as they are turning right. Trucks have been tipped onto cars this way and it's led to deaths.

Well where do I start. If you really look at this brings up some very profound issues if you look at it and you have to address your views on these issues.

Firstly a longer lorry going past you will take longer to pass you especially in slower traffic so there is more chance of getting squashed and less chance of getting out off the road. It is not about approaching one of these - it is about it going past.

If the freight goes by rail then less lorries on our road. less emissions and smog and less risk of injury. Get rail to be more price competitive.

I would have thought the less lorries the better, less cars seems a perennial desire on these pages so why do we accept more lorries or larger lorries or most likely both.

It is not as if the freight industry could give two hoots about who they squash and bash up.

The comment people buy trucks supply, seems incredibly simplistic to me. Supermarkets can take a carrot grown at a farm next door to you to a central hub hundreds of miles away and then ship it back to the seller who lives the other side of you.

The whole commerce retail system generates miles and miles of needless miles. This is another waste of resources congestion and money. If these business and freight companies could be bothered to get there acts together then you could reduce freight travel quite markedily.

If you blog, complain - create a network and link and complain.

Why do you think the buy local campaign is so popular.

People buy but lorries do not have to travel so far or deliver so much if 1. we buy sensibly and 2 the laziness of the companies and to a certain extend the freight companies and the rail is stopped and they start to act more sustainably.

We are so lazy it is easy to say we buy lorries supply but I don't think, we think enough, about what we buy and the effect it has - many above comments support this view.

Buy less I would say, source local second hand stuff - good quality stuff. buy local. harass companies to be more effective in the planning of transporting goods. Start a new and second hand parts business in your local area. get more involved locally. Buy as a group. we are.

Any other suggestions welcome. You have already started doing this by linking to this articles and either or bot reading and leaving a blog.

We can't continue to run the way we do economically. socially and environmentally.

Skippy got it right when he said it was complicated

THis subject is too complicated for an answer here so blogged an item www.skippi-cyclist.blogspot.com
Be interested in any feedback from the manchester area !

I am a keen cyclist and also teach vehicle technology after a career as a large goods vehicle technician, I posses a LGV driving licence and commute by bicycle. I think the issue here is not clear cut, and the arguments for and against more complex than first meets the eye.

The technology available on modern lorries is fairly complex, in order to meet the legislation imposed on the motor industry to meet european safety and emission limits. However devices to warn drivers of objects on the nearside of the vehicle are currently conceptial and not available as standard equipment.

These proposed larger vehicles will have positively steered axles on the trailers and so will have a smaller turning circle than many current configurations. Longer vehicles could potentially mean less larger vehicles on the road. This could result in a reduction in emissions to please those campaigning for cleaner air.

I support the SMIDSY campaign but in equal measure the "people buy, trucks supply" campaign.

For the moment I am going to remain neutral on this argument!

There is a very significant safety issue that no-one has touched on here. The longer a vehicle is, the more space it needs to turn. Where the width of roads are limited, longer lorries means that junctions need to be 'flared' (i.e. have a wide diameter approach) rather than have sharp corners, which slow traffic down. Best practice is now to make the approach to junctions and roundabouts more radial (max radius 5m), but that would prevent some lorries turning without their rear wheels mounting the curb.

If we get stuck with those rounded corners, cars can take the junction or enter the roundabout at higher speed, so cyclists become more vulnerable to all vehicles, not just lorries.

As a CTC member I'm becoming more and more discouraged by their style of campaigning. As for the lorry issue have the cyclist / hgv fatalities not in the main been caused by 10m 8 wheel tippers?

Those bigger trucks are simply not suitable for use on a vast percentage of the UK road network. And yes, they will increase safety risks for cyclists and motorcyclists in particular, but also car and van occupants too. I very much doubt that their being allowed on UK roads will result in a significant reduction on the numbers of heavy trucks on our already congested road network or in significant cuts in product costs for consumers. They may benefit hauliers, who admittedly are pretty hard pressed at present, but they won't anyone else.

>But it's other cyclists being daft, nothing else.

>they are going to be driven the same way as trucks just >now are.

Having been on the other end of a few overtakes where the *cab* was a sensible distance away as the overtake started, but I was sh*tting myself as to where the back end was going to wind up (and it *was* close - I had to brake to ensure I didn't get swiped), I beg to differ.

If the driver can make a decent overtake - fair enough - but the further away the back end is from the front end, the harder it'll be for the driver to judge where the back of the vehicle is as he pulls in. Where do you draw the line - 18 meters, 25 meters, 40 meters..? And like many drivers, even a (generally better/better trained) commercial driver may still make a bad call on overtake distances.

Now, I could be wrong, but ISTR that overtaking trucks on the motorway get flashed by the overtakee to say when they're safe to pull in...if they know where the back of the truck is, surely there's no need ? (other than being a matter of road manners).

As devil's advocate, I would point out that is *has* been suggested that larger trucks can carry greater loads

This is anticipated to have two potential direct effects

1. up to 10% fewer such vehicles on the road
2. significantly increased damage to road surfaces not properly suited to such vehicles

As for the collision issue - while any loss of life is tragic - surely cyclists should know not to filter up the left-hand side of a bus or HGV?

Now i understand why that would work down in England because you have motorways everywhere, when you come to Scotland, they end at Perth, which is around 85 miles from me, so if as you suggest, they can only use them on motorways, that pretty much makes them useless in Scotland, Perth to Inverness is around 100 miles and then you've got everything north of that aswell, just not going to work that way, so then you'd have to split onto two 16.5m lorry's or a number of smaller trucks and vans, simply not cost effective for companies and they might aswell just load everything onto 16.5m's and leave from wherever with them

You have to accept that if this is allowed, you will see them on smaller roads and maybe even roads that are not suitable for their size, but thats nothing new, you see that all the time just now

Up here i'd much rather have lorries all over the road than the boy racers who drive with a death wish, but that happens when its the easiest place in the UK to pass your driving license, NO round about, NO traffic lights, NO pedestrian crossing's, basically nothing to worry anyone learning to drive

My personal sentiment is that a truck never killed anyone bike deaths are cause by drivers and cyclists. I am sure this will go through to appease the hauliers fuel lobby. We will see more deaths because of it, I don't know and projections are just that. I think cyclists will need to wise up in the way we have about bendy buses, you think twice before shooting up the inside or outside of one of them. I certainly feel more in danger from ford transits than artics.

Thereverent is spot-on. "Road trains" would not be so bad an idea, if they were confined to roads which can clearly accomodate them and where they don't pose a danger to other vehicles or to neighbouring property/people. That means that there has to be a distribution system which permits their cargos to be offloaded onto smaller vehicles for the final few miles into the city street/rural lane network. Such has been suggestsed for major cities like London, with depots in the suburbs, but somehow I don't see that going down well with the hauliers - larger lorries are about reducing cost per tonne and distribution systems are not going to do that

My issue is not so much about the length of HGVs but where they are used. I would have no problem if I was sure 18m HGVs would only be used on motorways between depots.
But in the last few years firm have started using larger vehicle to deliver to places down small roads. Small local supermarket which use to be restocked by vans, now have full size HGVs squeezing down small streets then blocking the road while they unload. Any parking fine they incure is taking as part of the delievry cost.

That's why I don't support the longer HGVs.

blimey, some sensible comment here.

Won't make much difference to me at all, a tool in a 16.5m lorry is the same as a tool in an 18.5m lorry.

I'll keep myself out both's way where I can, and if not I'll be too mashed to care how big it was.

I'd much rather the ctc spent their time (and my subscription) campaigning for the adherence to existing road rules by all users - a day in london at a busy junction with a video camera would give far more food for thought than this.

Now this is where i take issue, WHY is it more likely to injure anyone? Unless you put yourself in a position that may result in you getting injured, i dont see where they can find ANY proof that it would endanger more lives. Yes they may be 2m longer, but they are not going to be any heavier or faster, they are going to be driven the same way as trucks just now are.

If you put yourself into a situation where you are going to get hurt by a truck then thats your own stupid fault and i can sight numerous videos of people doing this with all types of vehicles.

The CTC should concentrate more on educating cyclists about THEIR actions instead of blaming every other person on the road, They sight bigger blind spots on these lorries, WELL tell us all with video's and the like of these blind spots, where they are and how to avoid them, people might take heed of this, They also say about more road damage caused by these lorries, but surely a larger lorry will create more tax, use more fuel and therefore be putting money back into the government purse..........oh yeah, but i forgot, they are cutting everything and not bothering with fixing road, this is not the haulage industries fault, so dont go blaming road damage solely on them, yes they may cause it quicker than other road users, but they pay higher road taxes which are supposed to go back into the roads networks, but as we ALL know to well, this is not the case and from top to bottom, Government to local councils, they all complain but do nothing.

I was only pointing out that delivery costs may be one benefit, not lower costs though, but not only to online shoppers, take your LBS, if they can get more in a delivery at once, its also going to save them money

It's true that the bodies mentioned above CTC, Campaign for Better Transport, Freight on Rail, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Sustrans, Friends of the Earth and RoadPeace all have an agenda, but it's rather sad that "our" agenda is the misguided belief that this will lower delivery costs and mean you get your latest rims for £20 cheaper from an online retailer rather than your LBS.

The issue is not whether a 18.5M lorry is more capable of injury than a 16.5M one, rather, it is more likely to injure. Though maybe I'm wrong... Gkam's been hit twice by a lorry and survived. Perhaps if one had been an 18M-mutha he'd be toast?

Pleased to see common sense replies here rather than knee jerk truck and trucker bashing. These new wagons will be 95% on motorways, no-one wants them in town especially the operators. CTC should find better uses for its (our?) time and money.

Wise up CTC and Road.cc
Stop behaving like Daily Mail journalists and end the witch hunting of the haulage industry. Instead, lets get our own house in order and educate the mindless riders who compromise their own safety in order to save a few seconds (in effect, acting like car drivers, kinda ironic really).

In the main - if you don't undertake, as a cyclist, you'll be fine. Too many people (Old St roundabout in London is a classic) on two wheels pile into gaps that disappear. Whether it's a bus, a rigid, or an artic makes no difference. Getting squashed by a disappearing gap makes no sense. And I see it too many times. But it's other cyclists being daft, nothing else.

The extra space on the proposal is no bad thing. They won't have a higher gross weight, just have more room for goods. A good thing in my view.

Both CTC and Sustrans should focus their energies elsewhere in my opinion.

Simon, i've been hit twice by lorries on country lanes up here, funny enough, both from the same company and both very large trying to fit down roads that cannot accommodate them

First one overtook my uphill and i got hit by the back corner as it swung out to get round the next bend and the second one i was going uphill and it coming down and got a glancing blow from the drivers side as i jumped outta the way into a ditch, both drivers not bothering to stop either

So i know what its like and still dont see the difference 2m will make apart from causing another stir which makes cyclist's look like they are out against any form of motor vehicle on the roads, we have to live in their world else we would all be mountain bikers on hill tracks and off road, WE make a choice to use the roads and YES they could be alot safer with some driver awareness and thoughtfulness, but at the end of the day, we need to share the roads with them and not campaign against ever single change that "Might" make things more dangerous

Not really much different to a bendy bus, they're 18m. Although they bend in the middle so don't swing as wide on turning.

As Gkam84 says, it doesn't really bother me. It's not all the lorries fault either, I think cyclists bear some responsibility for not attempting overtake or undertake manouvres while the lorry is trying to negotiate a tight space.

At least keep them out of central london. I don't care how big they are so long as they're not charging down country lanes or central london roads where they don't fit.

I'm neither for or against this to be honest

Allowing larger lorries will benefit alot of companies up here by allowing more to be delivered at once and therefore cutting delivery costs

But i do understand the safety issue aswell, but i'm not going to know the difference if i'm hit by 16.5m or a 18.55m lorry, they are both going to hurt or kill me