Safe Speed Forums

The Highways Department now plan a trial of restricting LGV vehicles to the inside lane during busy periods on heavily conjested motorway stretches.

About time to

However, as normal they have not put in place any other limits to take care of the problems this would incurr.

Other traffic should be given a Minimum speed limit of 60 mph, thus not permitting them to interfere with LGV progress.

On the other side of madness.

DFT are now considering allowing a firm in the North, permission to run 25 metre long trucks, with a carrying capacity of 60 Ton's.

So one department brings a good principle to reduce congestion.

Whilst another permits an outrage

_________________
Steve

In Germany trucks are limited to the "slow lane" on some roads at peak times. These are on 2 lane roads though.

I don't think it will have any effect on Motorways unless you have a "minimum" speed as well.

I often see grandad doing 40 mph in his Rover 100 on the M1. Just imagine how many truck drivers he will get up his a*ss if this goes through.

Maybe the option is to scrap speed limiters and use the Japanese system of cab marker lights that light up in sequence to show what speed a truck is doing.

On the load limit side Tank Transporters have always been alowed on the road. The cargo is 70 tonnes so I dread to think how much the whole rig weighs.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Only with an escort.

The 60 ton, 25 metre road train will be un-escorted

_________________
Steve

So, we will have LGVs in the slow lane from one end of the motorway to the other. What chance do lanes 2 and 3 have of leaving the motorway or do they think everyone joins at one end and leaves at the other? Not tnat leaving will be a problem since it will be impossible to join in the first place. Perhaps that is the aim, prevent traffic joining the motorway. I know other methods of achieving the same result have been tried such as cutting onramps to one lane and installing traffic lights. Much cheaper to get the LGVs to do the job.

I could see some benefit in limiting LGVs to L1 and L2 where there are 4 or more lanes.

The trucks are not the problem, it's the damn limiters. If they were derestricted there would be less trouble. As it is the difference in speed is just how the speed limiter was calibrated. Most of those trucks would have enough power to do 70 on a flat road and on a hill those with more power would just sail past the lower powered trucks.

Most of the 44 tonners I ever load appear to be fitted the massive ventilated disc brakes now too, so stopping the things should be less of a problem than with drum brakes (truck drivers feel free to disagree).

Obviously limiting means trucks never crash, because only speed kills as we all know.

I don't have a problem with bigger trucks either. As long as they can axle out the weight it won't be a problem. And some more power would be needed too. Bigger trucks mean less trucks.

Some facts about the Denby B-Double, taken from Commercial Motor magazine, 25 Nov 04.

Dynamic distribution of axle weights under braking is superior to standard artic.

Good straight-line stability- even on wet and split friction surfaces.

Slalom manouvres up to 40km/h cause no stability/handling problems.

The outfit can turn comfortably within the standard artic turning corridor.

Environmental estimates suggest it could reduce HGV journeys by 25% in payload terms - or 50% in payload volume.

When running at just under 60 tonnes at simulated motorway speeds, fuel consumtion rises by over 29%, but the payload gain is 41%.




In addition, the DfT has responded by insisting on extra data on it's braking and safety performance.
Which means they can't find anything wrong with it and know they should be letting it on the road, but are too scared to.

The main problem, will be educating car drivers to read the sign on the back of it telling them it is much longer than the normal artic, so they won't try and overtake it like they would a normal artic.
Remember, it is 25m long, about 8m longer than the standard artic.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

They state the TRACTOR UNIT has the same turning circle NOT THE WHOLE THING, their is no way a 25 metre unit can take a turning in the same manner as an 18 metre artic. Then you 25 metre's to get out of a turning, the gap you would need is massive. Whilst you sit and wait for that non existent gap, congestion increases behind you.




These units could only be used to deliver to Large distribution depots, on the end of M/Ways. The overall estimate is they are only 8 % more efficent, however they did not add in the additional transport needed to complete the local deliveries to sites that a 25 metre rig cannot access. Their is plenty of those, i know from the problems we have getting our 18 mtre rigs in & out of places. Combine it with the additional smaller deliveries, i doubt you would see any saving.

Then their is the extended risk to car drivers, any manouvre will create a 12 metre blind spot. This is the biggest cause of accidents on m/ways as it is with standard units.




They are right to do so.



Road planning needs to be dealt with considering the lowest possible denomenator, the fool that will run up the side of the 2nd trailer as the truck manouvres.



Of coarse they will overtake it, it will be doing 40 mph on an A road, more frustration and more accidents as a result of rushed mistakes.

_________________
Steve

Modern truck braking systems are far superior



Sshh!!! the DFT do not want anyone to know that limiting the speed of vehicles has no effect on thier accident stat's.




You can axle out the weight, which only effects how the truck handles, and helps spread the load. At the end of the day, you still have 60 T rather than 44 T running around our roads, which will always mean heavier wear & tear.



That would only be true if our road sytem was designed to take bigger trucks, the simple truth of it is, they are not, we struggle with 18 metre in alot of places.

_________________
Steve

The axles on the leading trailer ‘counter-steer’ thereby providing a turning arc that conforms to existing Con&Use Regs.



What additional transport? Using vehicles of this size would not increase ‘over the counter sales’. The volume of product handled by the Distribution Centre would remain the same, but the number of vehicles delivering there would reduce.



60 tonnes on 8 axles, compared with 44 tonnes on six axles? Mmm. Where’s my calculator? No different to running a six axle artic followed by a 17 tonne two axle rigid carrying the overspill.



The leading trailer is fitted with rear facing CCTV to cover any turning blind spots.




As they will be primarily intended for Motorway trunking, where the average motorist only visits Lane 1 on rare occasions, where do you foresee a problem?

Standard artic requires 18 metres of lead space before the end of the rig exits the turning. Get your calculator back out, the denby requires 25 metre's.




Try to delivery from a 25 metre rig in a town centre, i do not think so

Depot to depot, yes no problem, however that is not the end user.




Put 60 ton on a bridge it is 60 ton of load bearing weight. Maybe i should put more handles on my dumb bell, so i could lift more, using your theory.




Clearly you have not driven an Artic. For example if the vehicle moves right, the leading trailer off side edge will be facing the rear trailer curtain, the N/side corner will be facing whatever happens to be on the overside of the pavement. AT NO TIME, would it continue to view the side of the rear trailer.



Largest cause of M/way accidents involving trucks, is due to the Blind spot's and the truck moving over before they have passed the vehicle behind. Bad enough to estimate a standard trailer, yet alone 25 metre.



Lane one is the traveling Lane, 2 & 3 are overtaking lanes. You need to get out more and travel in Lane 1, which full of your average Motorist, caravan's and every other form of transport.

_________________
Steve

Is there perhaps some some confusion over what "turning circle" means here? You're talking about "lead space" and exiting a turn, but to me that seems totally unconnected to the turning ability of the unit - surely a 25m long truck requires 25m of space to drive into no matter whether it's turning onto a road at a very shallow angle (e.g. merging with the main carriageway at the end of a slip road) or taking a right-angled corner around a T-junction/crossroads?

As far as the turning circle is concerned, isn't that more related to the length of each rigid section of the unit, rather than the combined length of each articulated section?





Hmm... I'm with Grumps here, what difference does it make to the road if the 60 tons is being carried by one of these twin-trailer units, or by two regular trucks in close formation?

And yes, you could lift more weight if you put another handle on your dumb bell, if it meant you could then use both hands instead of just one...




True, but that doesn't make it impossible to mount a camera on the leading trailer in such a position that it COULD cover the rear trailer, it just means you have to think a bit more about where the cameras would need to be mounted... I'd be tempted to stick some wide-angle cameras on the back of the leading trailer chassis, above and behind its rear wheels - in your scenario, as the leading trailer turns to the right, this part of its bodywork should then stick out to the LEFT of the rear trailer, because it's on the far side of the pivot point between the two trailers.

Which was my point

18 metre unit needs the lentgh of the trailer. The 25 metre unit requires the length of both trailers, it will turn better with steering wheels, but it is certainly not as an 18 metre unit. During the the manouvre the driver will lose sight of BOTH trailers throuth out the manouvre, until the rig is straight again, 22 metres is one hell of a blind spot. You can fit rather alot of vehicles, pedestrians & cyclists in that area.




Not possible, as the rear of the leading trailer can never have a fixed visual position over a rear trailer that moves. You would need a camera to cover every angle the trailer moves. As the leading trailer would only have sight position towards the curtain of the second trailer or skywards on outer manouvres.



This is not my scenario, this is the scenario of an Artic Unit. As soon as an artic unit manouvres the driver loses sight.

.

R/Hand morror views side cutain, L/H mirror views the countryside. This is why so many car drivers come un stuck, as they do not understand the blind spots of an artic.

An old saying "if you cannot see my mirrors, i cannot see you", try it next time you see an artic turning.

_________________
Steve

Those Northerners have big ideas! Massive engines pulling along huge loads. Will the locomotives be diesel? Will they run on existing rail tracks, or will they need a new wide guage system running alongside the motorways?!?

_________________
I stole this .sig

They seem quite capable of creating their own guage system in the inside lane of our M/ways.

_________________
Steve

Sorry, we still seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. When you talk about exiting a turn, I take that to mean once the unit has completed the turn and is now heading in the new direction, thus it requires enough space on the road it's joining to accommodate its length. It now sounds more like you're using lead space and turn exiting to mean the space the unit drives into beyond the corner, BEFORE it even begins to start the turn. So if it were negotiating a right-angle, the road it was turning into would need to be as wide as the unit is long. Is that more in line with what you're on about?





Sigh... You're talking about the limitations of a standard mirror setup, I'm trying to explain how augmenting such a setup with video cameras, mounted on those parts of the tractor/leading trailer bodywork which DO have line-of-sight to the opposite side of the trailer during a turn, could avoid this blind-spot problem.




So old that I'm well aware of it, thanks all the same.

This is a copy of a letter sent to the HA, c/o a Mr Butterfield:


Dear Mr. Butterfield,

As you are aware, HGVs have a wide ranging hill climbing ability dependent upon the GVW and engine power rating. You will also be aware that this is the most hilly part of the A/M42. I myself have ended up doing 30MPH up some of these hills, espeically westbound. taking a good mile or more to get back up to speed.

Your proposal would subject every other HGV behind me to the same thus ensuring there will be hundreds of HGVs doing this stretch that will average 3-4MPG for approximately 20 miles. Is this compatible with the Govts Environmental Policy or had you not thought about this effect?

Also may I add, why a 7am-7pm ban? Most of the traffic has disappeared by 9am and doesn't build up significantly until around 4pm so we'd all be crawling along in L1 at 30MPH/3MPG with a completely empty L2 for most of the day.

The only thing your scheme will do, will be unnecessarily increase the levels of stress in a job already at dangerously high levels, increase fuel consumption by 50% for that stretch as well as making more demands on the driving time which is already stretched to the limit as it is. It will further enforce the views of those who feel we are being persecuted by the Highways Agency/Police/Local Authorities and I can forsee events coming to a head where enough HGV drivers will refuse to make a gap for cars to enter or exit the A42 at junctions. In fact it could end up at the point where HGV drivers REFUSE to take any loads involving the A42 and with the current shortage of drivers/large amounts of work available, it is quite feasible to do this.

I do not think it will have the desired effect car drivers believe it will. Perhaps instead you should concentrate on targetting the 10,000's of single occupancy cars using that route when many of the people in those cars could car share or use P.T. I take it you never travelled that section during the October school half term. Traffic was like it was in the early 90's suggesting that the problem isn't in fact with the HGVs but the amount of frivolous journeys done by car.

Oh and as a final note Mr. Butterfield, could you please write a letter to every single business in the West Midlands and within 50 miles of the M5 as well as the entire South West of England and South Wales to explain why their deliveries will be late/unable to get there?

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

On one of the motorways heading into Melbourne we have L3 designated a "transit" lane during peak periods where only vehicles with 2 or more people are permitted. (Taxis and motorbikes are also allowed)

This may be a way of forcing people into car sharing and reduce some of the congestion as that is often the ONLY lane moving at a reasonable pace during the peak period.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

as far as I'm aware I have to pay the same amount of taxes weather it's just me in the car or there are 3 others in there with me. So to hell with HOV lanes.

You are getting their, but not really.

You not only need the lead space to accomodate length, also your steering angle, as the front trailer steer's the rear trailer. Space is required to do both.





I suggest you draw yourself a little diagram of a turning articulated vehicle and find a position that has a constant view point

You will then see how flawed this idea is


.

Here is an up to date one. "if you cannot see my camera, i cannot see you"

_________________
Steve

A LGV gunning it up hill, will use less fuel if was on a lower rev band

I do not think so

This will change as a matter of progress, as more and more of the old knackered lgv's only capable of 30 will be removed from the road.





2 Lanes not restricted to 56 mph, of coarse it will have the desired effect for car drivers.



10,000 paying the same rate of road tax as everyone else.



So we pay Tax, Insurance & fuel, just to use the car for journey's which are deemed required.

Are you mad

_________________
Steve