Call for route restrictions as Longer HGVs damage roads, property and endanger cyclists

In the UK we have it all wrong, and it's not really the transport industry to blame as they simply fulfill a specific demand.

We have large superstores located in town and city centres meaning that large delivery vehicles are required to service them with no option other than to pass though urban areas on minor roads. Such superstores should be on the outskirts of our towns with direct links to both major roads (or rail/water) for deliveries and infrastructure suited to smaller vehicles (including cycles) and pedestrians. In other words customers from the town would typically use separate infrastructure to go shopping compared to the vehicles making deliveries. Not enough thought is given to these factors when planning permission is granted for these big shops which should be pushed further away from our town centres.

I'm in favor of all HGVs being restructed to A roads and motorways with exceptions being made where necesary, like a one-off delivery of a static caravan to a rural campsite. Such exceptions would need to be applied for in advance and approved.

The rear trailer swing out is frightening. Yes I can see these working but they need to be restricted in use to minimum UK trunk 'A' roads and within say 5 miles of a motorway. These jamming up small towns just won't work. The congestion at junction they will cause will out rule them.
Then will the hauliers pay for all the highway restriction signs across the entire UK stating "no extra long vehicles on this route".
Nah it will never happen.
I noted the train lines in the video...now theres an idea, trains on tracks! That could task off Dr Beeching.

Hexhome The problem is that we have these trucks out on the road in substantial numbers, BEFORE the tests at Millbrook showed the major issues which can occur when these trucks are operated in confined areas.

When the suggestion to try out bike racks on the front of buses was promoted there was no suggestion of a pilot project doing this with even a 5 year exemption - it had to be tested before any on-road trials took place, and the results (the only time ENCAP standards were applied to a commercial vehicle to date) showed enough issues on damage and harm to stop any options of asking for a pilot project.

Yet for 15 metre rigid coaches the case was pushed through because of a big industry 'interest' (ie financial benefit) in getting the longer vehicles in service (typically 65 seats vice 49 for the same coach). They have to have steering rear axles, and have had a fatal crash because of a failure of that technology, now known about and dealt with. With the increased length came a change in the full-lock rear outswing for a rigid vehicle from 0.8m to 1.2m (so you might notice that coach back seems just a bit closer as it turns when you pass - it may well be the case)

Likewise we have a substantial number of these semi-trailers on test (DfT has a list on their website, and several operators are trying to 'buy-up' allocations that others are not using - also I suspect, some shadow allocations, where a retailer uses a logistics operator and both have allocations for operating longer semi trailers). Word has filtered in that one depot with the larger semi-trailers had a run of 'bashes' with the longer units, possibly being moved around the yard, although obviously they are not likely to make a great show of this.

Feedback from other Class 1(E) drivers might come through informally though. The semi-trailers require steered rear axles and details are discussed in the paper http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/longer_lorries_final.pdf Bear in mind here that Jim from Cambridge Cycling Campaign actually wrote the original program for swept path of large vehicles when he was working for TRL and was thus a very appropriate person to be present for the testing at Millbrook. That outswing looks mighty drastic and does depend on the sophisticated rear wheel steering (at slow speeds) and its phasing out (at higher speeds) - something which didn't happen on the coach that crashed, causing the vehicle to become unstable, when cornering at speed.

There is no justifiable economic reason for these vehicles to be in urban centres. It doesn't matter how much longer or heavier they are than the existing fleet they are too big. They should be restricted to motorways and major A roads only.
Even if they imposed access restrictions on these vehicles there will always be the driver who believes their sat-nav and goes down a road which is impassable because of width or height restrictions, like the one I encountered on Thursday evening in Guildford. Having ignored a height restriction sign at a junction he drove a mile down a road only to get stuck at a railway bridge. He then held up rush hour traffic for nearly an hour while he tried to turn his vehicle around.
We have had 50 years of turning urban centres into road systems to take progressively larger and larger trucks. As soon as the changes have bedded in along comes the freight industry and says; "That wasn't so bad was it? But what we'd really like to do is have even bigger trucks"; and like idiots the DoT rolls over and gives in.
The road systems in urban centres should be restricted to pedestrians, bikes, cars, vans and LGVs.
Vehicle this size should be used as feeders and the money wasted on widening roads and junctions and repairing the damage they do, spent on infrastructure that has delivery and distribution hubs to service the local community.

I am a cyclist, have been for about 53 years. I have raced, on and off road, commuted and am now a leisure rider. I also drive an articulated lorry and have recently driven one of the extra long vehicles now on trial in the UK.
This article is completely misleading as it concentrates on vehicles that are not in fact included in the trial. It miss quotes the maximum lengths and weights being trialled . The video shows vehicles with 2 trailers which are also not being trialled.
The current articulated lorry maximum is one 45ft long trailer and a gross of 44 tonnes.
The trial involves increasing the maximum trailer length to 50ft with no weight increase. These trailers have steered rear wheels.
From a driving point of view, these trailers follow the unit better, they tend not to cut corners as much as current trailers, however, the amount of 'swing' at the rear is worrying. I have only driven a short distance in a rural area but I can see that in an urban setting the overhang swing could be a problem. The company I work for only use this trailer on well tried specific deliveries and so far there have been no incidents.
The general trend for the media to vilify all large vehicles in use in built up areas is worrying. As a cyclist I know that I have the right to use the road and to be treated with respect by other road users. I also know that I am vulnerable and if I am in collision with any other vehicle I will come second. As a driver of any vehicle I try to respect all other road users especially the most vulnerable. The truck I drive is fitted with 6 mirrors, proximity sensors and a video camera but there are still blind spots. We are all responsible for each others safety but as cyclists we also need to be aware of the danger we could be riding into. Trucks are only there to do a job, everything we buy at some point is delivered by truck. We all need better awareness education what ever type of road user you are, pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car or truck driver.

I'm for these trailers. There are many loads hauled across the UK which are limited by their volume rather than the weight. A larger trailer allows a lot more to be moved, often not meeting the current gross vehicle weight which will remain the same! No one likes being passed by an articulated truck when cycling, but I cannot see a couple of extra metres in vehicle length making any difference, especially if it can help towards lowering vehicle numbers; or at least slowing an increase.

Given the current caution that has been shown by the Government and DoT, I can't see why the limitations and safety implications of these larger trailers cannot be considered with the next 10 years.

The video linked to in the road.cc article really is irrelevant to the current situation as the UK is not considering using road train style vehicles. Even if it were that video appeared to be poorly cited and heavily biased.

As a cycling HGV driver I spend a large amount of time promoting cycle awareness to HGV drivers as well as smoothing differences. Articles like this which show pictures and video which are NOT related to current legislation does not help my cause! This is scaremongering pure and simple. This video illustrates the actual type of vehicle being trialled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj9B1JmDcoA

There are some aspects of the new design which may actually improve safety for cyclists however that is a different discussion and I have no axe to grind either way.

Facts are being manipulated against cyclists all the time - New Forest for example. Maybe you felt that you wished to redress the balance?

A ten year trial? How many vulnerable road users will be killed during this trial?

Absolutely unbelievable - all the evidence suggests that that the larger the vehicle, the increased risk of death. The DoT should be trying to reduce vehicle size not increase it. But of course longer HGV's means lower operating costs and profit above all else is Britain today.

Watch the video. These monster trucks have no place on our roads. We are plagued by LGV's in my part of the country where its a fair distance to a motorway and main dual carriageway. Over the last 20 years the usage of trucks has sky-rocketed to silly levels. With most trucks now adhering to their vehicle class speed limit of 40mph on A roads, these roads have become a frustrating grind for motorists stuck behind as many as 6 trucks in a line all riding bumper to bumper and no way of passing. Its an increased danger for cyclists too. The level of trucks is ridiculous.

I've always felt that the government needs to get more freight on the railways and more trucks off the road and they need to build rail infrastructure where it is required.

These monstrous trucks are death traps and they have no place here.