# Illegal behaviour rampant among HGV drivers.



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2014)

Two thirds of lorries defective or illegal.


> Two thirds of lorries stopped by police are defective or being driven illegally, police records indicate, raising concerns over the safety of cyclists and other road users.





> Just 24 per cent of vehicles complied with regulations covering maintenance, how loads are carried, insurance and how long drivers have been on the road. Officers fined 243 lorry drivers for operating without a licence or working long hours, or for driving with insecure loads, broken lights or running a truck that was in poor condition.
> 
> Police seized 14 lorries, including an 18-tonne scaffolding lorry whose driver was uninsured and driving without a proper licence, as well as having various mechanical defects on the vehicle.


Shocking.


----------



## Dave 123 (7 Jan 2014)

I don't want to be negative, but what's the source?


----------



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2014)

Free to view:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3966743.ece

What have I always said about scaffolding lorries?


----------



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2014)

> In the first two months of a police clampdown on the most dangerous construction vehicles, 622 out of the 821 lorries stopped by officers failed to comply with the existing safety rules. Only 32 trucks had mirrors and safety equipment, including bars to prevent cyclists being crushed beneath the wheels, as required by law.



Any vehicle found unfit to remain on the roads must be in a shocking state. They should name and shame the companies, that would be interesting, and useful.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2014)

VOSA checks are random. In 2012-13 30% of those HGVs checked were issued prohibition notices on grounds of mechanical failure and 19% on grounds of drivers' hours.


----------



## Doc333 (7 Jan 2014)

The biggest load of bollox I've read on this site. 243 trucks go past my place of work every 4-hours, which means that your quote is actually a tiny, tiny, minuscule fraction of the trucks that occupy our UK roads. Point 2 When police pull a truck its because it looks dodgy, which usually means a foreign (Eastern European) truck. Point 3 this could be a snapshot of one particular area like Dover for instance.

Please don't allow your obvious hatred of motorists cloud your judgement. Oh and by the way, if more HGV drivers were driving cars cyclists would be far safer


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2859173, member: 45"]I'd be interested to know whether they stopped all lorries that passed them or picked their targets, as this would skew the statistics.[/quote]
I'd suggest you're thinking is correct. I can't imagine that the large well known fleets out there are operating in an unsafe manner ... though I'd hate to be wrong ....


----------



## Doc333 (7 Jan 2014)

A classic case would be trucks trying to deliver inside the M25 corridor, because of mad Boris and his emissions zone. Many truck operators are not aware that to deliver down there trucks need to comply with Euro 4, 5 or 6 standards. However many brand new trucks are only Euro 2 and 3 specification. Brand new trucks could fall foul of this local rule and be breaking the law. Idiotic rule as Euro, 4, 5 & 6 trucks are much more expensive and cost more to run, so it costs more tp service London area and is discriminatory.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2014)

> Only 30 per cent of the almost 6,000 vehicles stopped in the 11 months from January were driven legally or free from defects.



http://road.cc/content/news/106178-...ice-are-driven-illegally-or-lack-basic-safety

So why muck about asking cyclists silly questions about hi vis when four thousand lorries are trundling around London as they or their driver is breaking the law in some way?


----------



## Dave 123 (7 Jan 2014)

It may well be true, and I know that lorries are the cyclists bogey man but how many vehicles (lorries included) are defective and being driven by nobbers who shouldn't have the privilege of a driving licence.

All drivers (me included) should be tested on a regular basis.

Once all the students are back in cambridge I will do a survey on how many cyclists go down the inside of cars, vans, busses, lorries in a lane that you can go straight on AND left in.

Yes, some lorry drivers are eejits, but so are a fair % of every other road user group.

We ALL need to up our game.


----------



## buggi (7 Jan 2014)

they might say VOSA checks are random but pound to a penny the cops are suspicious before they pull them over, which kind of skews the statistic.


----------



## Adam4868 (7 Jan 2014)

Vosa isnt random thats for sure,and what counts as a serious defect ? It wouldnt be hard to find somthing wrong with a hgv,but i dont think it reflects them countrywide.


----------



## PaulSecteur (7 Jan 2014)

I have to drive on the 50mph bit of the m5 every day. Lorry drivers don't seem to be aware that "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule"

I would really like to see more plods on that bit.


----------



## summerdays (7 Jan 2014)

I thought that when I read the article earlier that it was specifically construction traffic?


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> It may well be true, and I know that lorries are the cyclists bogey man but how many vehicles (lorries included) are defective and being driven by nobbers who shouldn't have the privilege of a driving licence.
> 
> All drivers (me included) should be tested on a regular basis.
> 
> ...



And cyclists are killing how many lorry drivers exactly?


----------



## Dave 123 (7 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> And cyclists are killing how many lorry drivers exactly?



I don't see it as us against them. We are all responsible.


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> I don't see it as us against them. We are all responsible.


For killing people?


----------



## JayMac (7 Jan 2014)

Unfortunately im one of those hgv drivers that us cyclists like to bash... since i left the army 3 years ago ive worked nights on the wagons... alot of these headlines that you read also include alot of foreign wagons statistics... 

If vosa pull one polish wagon and find 10+ faults then that will skew the statisticd for other hgvs. So statistics can be fudged to prove an agenda.

Dont get me started! Haha


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

JayMac said:


> Unfortunately im one of those hgv drivers that us cyclists like to bash... since i left the army 3 years ago ive worked nights on the wagons... alot of these headlines that you read also include alot of foreign wagons statistics...
> 
> *If vosa pull one polish wagon and find 10+ faults then that will skew the statisticd for other hgvs. So statistics can be fudged to prove an agenda.*
> 
> Dont get me started! Haha



The OP was about the number of lorries that were defective or illegal, not about the number of infractions averaged out across the sample of lorries.


----------



## Brandane (7 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> VOSA checks are random. In 2012-13 30% of those HGVs checked were issued prohibition notices on grounds of mechanical failure and 19% on grounds of drivers' hours.


Pish. What do you know about VOSA? Or are you just off on one of your anti lorry crusades again? 
Having been directed into VOSA checkpoints several times while driving an HGV, I can assure you they target certain companies and nationalities.
I was always waved straight through the checkpoint when they realised I was driving for a reputable company.

99% of VOSA statistics are bollox anyway.


----------



## JayMac (7 Jan 2014)

Stats vosa quote are there to make themselves look important.

I do container work from liverpool seaforth docks.. and whenever a ferry from ireland arrives, vosa swarm them. And lo and behold 6hours later the vosa station has 10+ irish wagons there parked up.

But them wagons affect uk stats!


----------



## R_nger (8 Jan 2014)

JayMac said:


> Stats vosa quote are there to make themselves look important.
> 
> I do container work from liverpool seaforth docks.. and whenever a ferry from ireland arrives, vosa swarm them. And lo and behold 6hours later the vosa station has 10+ irish wagons there parked up.
> 
> But them wagons affect uk stats!



I'm not sure I follow - are you suggesting that foreign vehicles on UK roads should not be included in the statistics ? Or do these lorries get sent straight back to Ireland ?


----------



## JayMac (8 Jan 2014)

When its generalised that 30 odd percent of wagons in the uk are breaking laws it implies thats everyone.

If i took an educated guess id say maybe 5% of uk registered vehicles fall into that 30% generalisation.

Its not worth the risk running "bent" in the uk. Where as foreign vehicles are willing to run the risk

Edit*** i think the findings of any statistics should show where the vehicle is from.

Foreign vehicles are more likely to break the rules 99% of all drivers will agree and the other 1% probably dont understand the question because they dont speak english


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (8 Jan 2014)

I'm a bit confused, some people on here are saying that foreign large goods vehicles are skewing the figures.
Surely the nationality of a dangerous large goods vehicle is irrelevant because they've been stopped on British roads, I.e, where they're dangerous to British road users and breaking British legal requirements.

I think spots checks are a good use of sparse resources, the best option available, just the same as spot checks for drunk drivers.

Iirc from when I took my HGV test in the Army - I as the driver, was responsible for the vehicles condition, and if I was prepared to drive a non road worthy vehicle or go over my hours that was my personal choice, and as such I paid the price if caught driving said vehicle.


----------



## JayMac (8 Jan 2014)

All im saying is that if you pulled the next 100 vehicles from the uk. And the next 100 foreign vehicles. The majority of fines or infringements will land on foreign vehicles.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (8 Jan 2014)

I'm sorry but I still don't understand why that matters? Surely this means that the authorities efforts are having a positive impact and by targeting known previous offenders or demographic likely offenders is an efficient use of scarce resources is it not?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

JayMac said:


> All im saying is that if you pulled the next 100 vehicles from the uk. And the next 100 foreign vehicles. The majority of fines or infringements will land on foreign vehicles.



I don't care.


----------



## JayMac (8 Jan 2014)

Wonderful input there.


----------



## classic33 (8 Jan 2014)

JayMac said:


> Stats vosa quote are there to make themselves look important.
> 
> I do container work from liverpool seaforth docks.. and whenever a ferry from ireland arrives, vosa swarm them. And lo and behold 6hours later the vosa station has 10+ irish wagons there parked up.
> 
> But them wagons affect uk stats!


Are those wagons actually owned/operated by Irish companies, or English companies taking advantage of a cheaper operating system?
Stobart have a depot on the North Wall, using Irish registered vehicles. 
Go down the midlands(Ireland) & you'll come across a company thats known on both sides of the Irish Sea, to those whose job it is to check the vehicles on the roadside. A driver gets caught on one route in, will be taken of that route & come in by another.
They used to have a red colour scheme.

Question raised within the industry itself. How widespread is the use of GPS Jammers by drivers?


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

bromptonfb said:


> I'm sorry but I still don't understand why that matters? Surely this means that the authorities efforts are having a positive impact and by targeting known previous offenders or demographic likely offenders is an efficient use of scarce resources is it not?


That's true, but it skews the figures and presents statistics which are ammunition to the likes of the OP..
I am all for VOSA targeting known offenders, as it is a common sense use of resources. It is scaremongering at its worst though for the OP to then claim that in RANDOM checks, x% of lorries were found to have defects. 
It doesn't tell you that the 99% of lorries which VOSA DON'T check are running without any defects.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

classic33 said:


> Question raised within the industry itself. How widespread is the use of GPS Jammers by drivers?


No idea, but where can I buy one? It would mean being able to stop for a p*** without the phone ringing and some "manager" asking why you had stopped for 2 minutes! Is it illegal to block a GPS in any case?


----------



## classic33 (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> No idea, but where can I buy one? It would mean being able to stop for a p*** without the phone ringing and some "manager" asking why you had stopped for 2 minutes! Is it illegal to block a GPS in any case?


Try ebay. Whilst not illegal to own. one, it is illegal to turn it on. A very grey area, legalwise.


----------



## theclaud (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> That's true, but it skews the figures and presents statistics which are ammunition to the likes of the OP...



By "the likes of the OP", you mean those who object to lorries and their drivers killing people?


----------



## Dave 123 (8 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> For killing people?




The people who have killed people are responsible.
Those with a clean sheet are responsible to keep it that way.


----------



## subaqua (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2859212, member: 30090"]I'd want to drill further down into the stats of how the law has been broken.[/quote]
so would I . a cracked rear light is a defect and makes the vehicle illegal. doesn't make it unsafe to drive though. a 3mm tear at the end of a wiper is a defect and would be counted . yet this may well not have any detrimental effect on clearing the screen.

that said, any vehicle with a defect that impinges upon safety needs to be off the road ad the driver and Operator prosecuted properly


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> By "the likes of the OP", you mean those who object to lorries and their drivers killing people?


No, I think all reasonably minded people will object to ANY deaths on our roads, whatever or whoever the cause. What the OP continues to insist on doing though, is target the whole haulage industry with statistics which don't paint a true picture. Beano has covered the reasons for this.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

subaqua said:


> so would I . a cracked rear light is a defect and makes the vehicle illegal. doesn't make it unsafe to drive though. a 3mm tear at the end of a wiper is a defect and would be counted . yet this may well not have any detrimental effect on clearing the screen.
> 
> that said, any vehicle with a defect that impinges upon safety needs to be off the road ad the driver and Operator prosecuted properly


True, there are defects and there are DEFECTS.
I would be interested to know if @glenn forger complies with every rule and regulation while out on his bike. Does he have reflectors on his pedals between sunset and sunrise, for example? How many cyclists comply with this? Not me, for starters.
I can see the headline in the Daily Mail... "Illegal behaviour rampant among cyclists".


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> True, there are defects and there are DEFECTS.
> I would be interested to know if @glenn forger complies with every rule and regulation while out on his bike. Does he have reflectors on his pedals between sunset and sunrise, for example? How many cyclists comply with this? Not me, for starters.
> I can see the headline in the Daily Mail... "Illegal behaviour rampant among cyclists".


If they did, it would be true would it not?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (8 Jan 2014)

The better op title would have been to say that:

2/3's of vehicles stopped by VOSA were defective. It would be less sensational and truer to the facts, would possibly have been put into a better light and not so easily annoyed the safe & responsible large goods vehicle drivers.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

bromptonfb said:


> If they did, it would be true would it not?


An absolute certainty.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> True, there are defects and there are DEFECTS.
> I would be interested to know if @glenn forger complies with every rule and regulation while out on his bike. Does he have reflectors on his pedals between sunset and sunrise, for example? How many cyclists comply with this? Not me, for starters.
> I can see the headline in the Daily Mail... "Illegal behaviour rampant among cyclists".



I do.

If badly-maintained or illegal bikes are the cause of a significant number of deaths and serious injuries then they should be targeted. They're not.

If the heavy goods trade is regulated enough and all problems are caused by foreign drivers, how come a white British gentleman working for a London firm got a job driving lorries after being banned from driving twenty times? Fourteen lorries that were stopped were considered so dangerous they couldn't continue. There's nothing that indicates these were all foreign-owned.


----------



## Doc333 (8 Jan 2014)

bromptonfb said:


> I'm a bit confused, some people on here are saying that foreign large goods vehicles are skewing the figures.
> Surely the nationality of a dangerous large goods vehicle is irrelevant because they've been stopped on British roads, I.e, where they're dangerous to British road users and breaking British legal requirements.
> 
> I think spots checks are a good use of sparse resources, the best option available, just the same as spot checks for drunk drivers.
> ...


 
HGV drivers (UK) will not take out a truck with a defect as it will effect their livelyhood. FACT. Reputable operators and own fleet owners will not want adverse publicity or prohibition orders on their fleet FACT. If 30% of the trucks in the UK were 'illegal' there would be a public outcry and it would be mentioned in Parlaiment and the Minister of Transport would need to resign FACT.

VOSA are a quango and as such are under severe scrutiny from the treasury. They fear they may get binned because what value do they add in reality. They are a non governmental body who charge the UK tax payer a lot of money and need to justify their existence. So being smart they go to pull every Irish truck, every Eastern European truck, every european truck that's parked up on the outskirts of many of our cities overnight. Fuel is checked because with regard to these trucks they have a high % of red diesel, plenty of defects, overweight loads, duty fraud cargo ....... Easy target and easy to massage those figures to send to the treasury for your monthly cheque.


----------



## oldstrath (8 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> It may well be true, and I know that lorries are the cyclists bogey man but how many vehicles (lorries included) are defective and being driven by nobbers who shouldn't have the privilege of a driving licence.
> 
> All drivers (me included) should be tested on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


No doubt that a proportion of all road user groups are eejits, and the proportion may be smaller among lorry drivers, because of stricter testing. But an eejit on a bike is mainly a danger to himself, whereas an eejit with a lorry is a danger to everyone unlucky enough to be on the road with him. So we should expect better of lorry drivers, and hope that the police are more enthusiastic about banning them.


----------



## summerdays (8 Jan 2014)

Doc333 said:


> HGV drivers (UK) will not take out a truck with a defect as it will effect their livelyhood. FACT. Reputable operators and own fleet owners will not want adverse publicity or prohibition orders on their fleet FACT. If 30% of the trucks in the UK were 'illegal' there would be a public outcry and it would be mentioned in Parlaiment and the Minister of Transport would need to resign FACT.
> 
> VOSA are a quango and as such are under severe scrutiny from the treasury. They fear they may get binned because what value do they add in reality. They are a non governmental body who charge the UK tax payer a lot of money and need to justify their existence. So being smart they go to pull every Irish truck, every Eastern European truck, every european truck that's parked up on the outskirts of many of our cities overnight. Fuel is checked because with regard to these trucks they have a high % of red diesel, plenty of defects, overweight loads, duty fraud cargo ....... Easy target and easy to massage those figures to send to the treasury for your monthly cheque.


If there is a problem with those particular group of vehicles .... is it a problem targeting them? With limited resources I would rather they stopped the ones they thought would fail than randomly stopping all, though they need to do random checks too. (Obviously if they are twisting the statistics based on that targeted approach, that would be wrong).


----------



## Doc333 (8 Jan 2014)

Summerdays, I have no problem whatsoever with VOSA going after targeted foreign trucks. These trucks come over here and dont pay road tax like we do, yet these trucks cause more damage to our road network simply because many are overweight and illegal etc. When we visit their country we have to pay tolls ....

My problem is with the OP who thinks he's found some golden information, because it backs up his own personal view. This is a non story being given oxygen


----------



## subaqua (8 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> If there is a problem with those particular group of vehicles .... is it a problem targeting them? With limited resources I would rather they stopped the ones they thought would fail than randomly stopping all, though they need to do random checks too. (Obviously if they are twisting the statistics based on that targeted approach, that would be wrong).


 no problem with them targetting problem vehicles, but a cracked reflector , or a marker board only having 3 screws instead of 4 or fuel issues as defects are not going to cause an injury yet get lumped in with the derious defects such as defective brakes , leaking airlines.

One wonders how many of the vehicles with defects include broken lamps that have stopped working during the course of that journey. it can happen despite peoples cries of " anecdotal evidence"


----------



## summerdays (8 Jan 2014)

subaqua said:


> One wonders how many of the vehicles with defects include broken lamps that have stopped working during the course of that journey. it can happen despite peoples cries of " anecdotal evidence"


There are so many people that use that as an excuse (for weeks/months), that it becomes impossible to tell if it is true.


----------



## albion (8 Jan 2014)

For every 9 decent HGV driver you have 1 right crazy idiot.

I recall a HGV pulling out after what looked like a drop off, accelerate like mad and proceed to bounce for half a mile over the speed bumps.
The bouncing noise was deafening and you could be confident a fair bit of damage had been done, if not to his truck, to the road.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2860434, member: 30090"]Agreed, I'm glad the wheel tappers are finally doing some work and have no problem with them pulling people over. And if makes the industry take responsibility then even better.

As mentioned it was the rather crass generalisation of the OP that annoyed me. My Dad is a lorry driver, I was a lorry driver, I've worked with many truckers and having it said that we all partake in illegal behaviour ****es me off.[/quote]


Nobody said that. Don't make up stuff that nobody's said.
You can Google Operation Mermaid, a country wide scheme of claiming down on errant HGVS drivers and vehicles. All over the country lorries are being driven illegally. You may not like this, but it's a fact, your industry has a terrible reputation for drivers and vehicles breaking the law. That's not prejudice, it's a fact.


----------



## BrianEvesham (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2859173, member: 45"]I'd be interested to know whether they stopped all lorries that passed them or picked their targets, as this would skew the statistics.[/quote]
No, they go on a traffic light system for bad operators so if a "dodgy" operators truck is picked up approaching a road check he is almost guaranteed to be pulled, where as the sweaky clean good operator will be waved on.
So they are targeting the rouges which makes the figures look worse than they are.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

albion said:


> For every 9 decent HGV driver you have 1 right crazy idiot.



16% of vehicles stopped in Essex were immediately taken off the road.

http://www.essex.police.uk/news_fea...0/january/drive_to_rid_roads_of_dangerou.aspx


----------



## summerdays (8 Jan 2014)

BrianEvesham said:


> So they are targeting the rouges which makes the figures look worse than they are.


Doesn't that happen for cyclists too? Recently the police in Bristol have been stopping cyclists and motorists breaking the law at traffic lights. Nowhere in their statistics is there any figures for the numbers of cyclists and motorists who didn't jump the lights, have no lights, etc.


----------



## Doc333 (8 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> 16% of vehicles stopped in Essex were immediately taken off the road.
> 
> http://www.essex.police.uk/news_fea...0/january/drive_to_rid_roads_of_dangerou.aspx


 
90% of foreign HGV's in the country at any one time have to drive through Essex!! what a fantastic argument you're putting up. Also that stupid irresponsible statement you made about the transport industry's reputation is almsost libelous mate, if I were you I would try and keep quiet. If you have any concerns in that area please put your questions/accustations in writing to Beverley Bell, whi is the UK's foremost Traffic Commisioner. She is the person who is responsible for prosecuting all errant HGV drivers and truck operators. In her latest statement to government she states that 2013 has been the most succesful year in all her years experience. UK truck prosecutions down, UK operator transgressions at their lowest since records began in the 1970's. Prosecutions for foreign liveried/badged/owned trucks at a record high. She also asks the ministrer for transport to progress the road charging bill for foreign trucks, and to urge UK border force to check trucks for defects, illegal cargo, illegal people smuggling, contraband and red deisel.

Oh sorry this doesn't quite fit your post does it.


----------



## albion (8 Jan 2014)

In compensation, you have a better reputation than white van man.

It just happens that very many cycle fatalities have a HGV connection.


----------



## JoeyB (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2859173, member: 45"]I'd be interested to know whether they stopped all lorries that passed them or picked their targets, as this would skew the statistics.[/quote]
This ^ 

I'm guessing they only stopped the ones they suspected to be dodgy.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

Doc333 said:


> that stupid irresponsible statement you made about the transport industry's reputation is almsost libelous mate, if I were you I would try and keep quiet.



Your industry has a worse safety record on the roads than any other vehicle type. Good luck with bringing a libel case, statement of fact is a defence.

Operation Mermaid in Scotland:



> As a result of the operation 330 vehicles were stopped and inspected. 131 offences were detected and 46 vehicles were prohibited for mechanical defects.
> 
> A 40 yr old man was stopped in Glasgow driving a goods vehicle. The man provided a positive breath test and his vehicle was found to be overloaded. A report has been submitted to the Procurator Fiscal in relation to these offences.
> 
> The DWP traced three people who were claiming benefits while working. Their benefits were immediately removed and DWP continue their enquiries.



http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2013/may/169615/

Cleveland:



> Of 50 vehicles that were stopped and checked, 36 offences were detected.
> 
> Three vehicles were seized for having no insurance, seven vehicles were issued with prohibitions following a number of defective vehicles and one driver was issued a £200 fine by VOSA for not taking his weekly rest period.



http://www.cleveland.police.uk/news/releases/release15354.aspx

North Wales:



> Out of the 43 vehicles stopped as part of the operation 35 (80%) were found to be breaching the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Throughout the day a number of offences were found including people with no valid driving licence, no road tax, vehicle overloading, committing driver hours’ offences, using mobile phones, defective tyres and excess speed.



http://www.north-wales.police.uk/news__appeals/latest_news/operation_mermaid.aspx

These are not trivial offences, and they cannot possibly have all been committed by the foreigners you seem desperate to blame.

Warks:









> Twenty-one vehicles were pulled over into Barnhill Services on the M40 under Operation Mermaid where Police worked alongside officers from VOSA (Vehicle and Operator Services Agency) and HMRC.
> 
> VOSA issued 14 prohibitions, preventing the vehicle from being driven until the defect had been rectified whilst the Police issued:
> 
> ...



http://www.safer-neighbourhoods.co....utham-policing-area-nets-21-unlawful-vehicles

Your claims about Beverley Bell are not accurate either, in fact she said the direct opposite of what you claimed:



> Beverley Bell slammed Vosa for “not targeting the serially and seriously non-compliant” .
> 
> The allegations were made before the Transport Select Committee in April as part of its ongoing inquiry into Vosa’s work, but the full transcript of the evidence was only made public last month ahead of the publication of the committee’s final report later this month.
> 
> ...



http://www.commercialmotor.com/late...e&utm_campaign=GOOGLE_PLUS_|_Commercial_Motor

Beverley Bell complains not enough is done to get these idiots off the road.


----------



## subaqua (8 Jan 2014)

summerdays said:


> There are so many people that use that as an excuse (for weeks/months), that it becomes impossible to tell if it is true.


 does not mean that it doesn't happen.

I got most aggrieved with a dealership who at MOT time, rightly changed the original indicator lamps on my wifes car after 11 years as the orange was starting to let white through, and the replacement lamp failed in less than 6 hours. The stealer wanted to charge me for another new lamp as " lamps can go at any time" . funny that the original lamps in the cars were still working just starting to show a little bit of white.

when the driving lamp went on my Volvo as I was going along a bumpy bit of the north Circular I just drove to the nearest Halfrauds 2 miles down the road and bought new lamps . the lamp removed that did work got put into the old package and put into the glove box.

maybe we could learn from the frogs - Lamp kit required in the car so no excuse.


----------



## Doc333 (8 Jan 2014)

Forger you're a bit of an arse and no point in discussing anything with you I'm afraid. Much more serious news around that deserves attention, not this stupid headline grabbing stunt of yours. Far be it from me to be fully conversant and informed in a line of business that I had no experience of ...... unlike you.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Nobody said that. Don't make up stuff that nobody's said.


 You're credibility just crashed and burned AFAIC. You made that statement in reply to Beano's reply that.....


> As mentioned it was the rather crass generalisation of the OP that annoyed me. My Dad is a lorry driver, I was a lorry driver, I've worked with many truckers and having it said that we all partake in illegal behaviour ****es me off.


 Now take a look at the title of your thread. Nobody said that? Give me strength.


----------



## theclaud (8 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> The people who have killed people are responsible.
> Those with a clean sheet are responsible to keep it that way.



Who are the people that are doing the killing, and who are the people that are being killed? Who are the people that are at risk of killing others? It might help you to understand better if you use the words "pedestrians", "cyclists" and "lorry drivers" in your answer.


----------



## Dave 123 (8 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> Who are the people that are doing the killing, and who are the people that are being killed? Who are the people that are at risk of killing others? It might help you to understand better if you use the words "pedestrians", "cyclists" and "lorry drivers" in your answer.




People killing people full stop. I don't see why we need to get tribal about it. Or are cyclists lives worth more than others?

But thanks for your advice on me understanding things. Very helpful.


----------



## theclaud (8 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> People killing people full stop. I don't see why we need to get tribal about it. Or are cyclists lives worth more than others?
> 
> But thanks for your advice on me understanding things. Very helpful.



Evasive much? I'll help you out. Lorries and those responsible for operating them are killing pedestrians and cyclists. Neither pedestrians nor cyclists are killing lorry drivers or their employers. So who is responsible for the killing?


----------



## Dave 123 (8 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> Evasive much? I'll help you out. Lorries and those responsible for operating them are killing pedestrians and cyclists. Neither pedestrians nor cyclists are killing lorry drivers or their employers. So who is responsible for the killing?




"Evasive much"? Grammatical claptrap.
"Neither pedestrians nor cyclists are killing lorry drivers or their employers....." Go on, prove that one.


----------



## theclaud (8 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> "Evasive much"? Grammatical claptrap.
> "Neither pedestrians nor cyclists are killing lorry drivers or their employers....." Go on, prove that one.



You can't bring yourself to speak a simple truth about who is killing whom. I suggest that you go away and have a bit of a think.


----------



## Dave 123 (8 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> You can't bring yourself to speak a simple truth about who is killing whom. I suggest that you go away and have a bit of a think.




People are killing people whilst using various modes of transport. In my second post I agree that lorries are a problem. I then go on to say that not only are lorries defective, but a percentage of all vehicles will be defective (these also kill cyclists and other road users).
In my opinion all vehicles can be a danger wether defective or otherwise, and that all operators need to be on their game regardless of which kind of vehicle they are using.
So can you prove that a cyclist has never killed a lorry driver then?
I am off to the gym now so you've a couple of hours to come back with a water tight reply.

I'm not sure if we're being really grown up or childish for arguing on a forum?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> You're credibility just crashed and burned AFAIC. You made that statement in reply to Beano's reply that..... Now take a look at the title of your thread. Nobody said that? Give me strength.



The title of the thread is "Illegal behaviour rampant among lorry drivers". The links I've posted back this up.

If someone is unable to understand the thread title and think it reads something completely different, like "All lorry drivers break the law" then that's beano's fault for lacking basic reading skills.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2860680, member: 45"] you can't come to the conclusion from your OP that "_Two thirds of lorries defective or illegal_" going on figures from targetted checks.[/quote]



> Operation Mermaid, which is run by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency and police forces all over the U.K. and is virtually a random road-side MOT for HGVs, routinely show contravention rates of over 50%, which shows that there are a lot of illegal lorries out on the road.



http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/tag/operation-mermaid/

The evidence from Operation Mermaid, which has been going on for years and years, suggests that hauliers routinely send out onto the roads vehicles which are not compliant with current legislation. 

The police also say the checks are random:



> Almost three-quarters of the lorries travelling on the M4 are breaking the law, shocked police revealed yesterday.
> 
> A spot-check on lorries travelling on the motorway in Wiltshire this week discovered and more than 71 per cent of them had some kind of illegal fault, either with the driver, the load or the lorry iself.
> 
> ...



They checked the lorries and the drivers, and more than half of them – 17 in total – were prevented from continuing their journeys until either their overweight loads were removed, or faults with the lorries were rectified.

You can argue semantics, I think the use of the word "rampant" with regard to dangerous or illegal HGV drivers is accurate and fair.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The title of the thread is "Illegal behaviour rampant among lorry drivers". The links I've posted back this up.
> 
> If someone is unable to understand the thread title and think it reads something completely different, like "All lorry drivers break the law" then that's beano's fault for lacking basic reading skills.



When I went to school, "illegal behaviour" and "break the law" meant much the same thing. "Rampant among lorry drivers" and "all lorry drivers" sound fairly similar to me, too.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> "Rampant among lorry drivers" and "all lorry drivers" sound fairly similar to me, too.



Sorry to hear that.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2861068, member: 45"]Another online report of Operation Mermaid states that the checks were targeted.[/quote]

Got it? 



> Starting in 1995 the UK police began a practice of stopping vehicles at *random* in order to check that they were road worthy. Called Operation Mermaid it was found to be so successful that they are to repeat the practice on a nationwide scale in August 1998.
> 
> http://www.readabstracts.com/Retail...ionwide-police-road-blocks.html#ixzz2ppvgObgm


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Jan 2014)

The Times quote below is about the construction trade in London. I'd call it sobering. As the construction trade is not predominantly occupied with long distance trucking, I think we can probably discount the ''enemy from without'' distraction. 

With that out of the way, I'd be very interested in what our truckers have to say about these figures and whether they can see that there is an enormous problem.



> In the first two months of a police clampdown on the most dangerous construction vehicles, 622 out of the 821 lorries stopped by officers failed to comply with the existing safety rules. Only 32 trucks had mirrors and safety equipment, including bars to prevent cyclists being crushed beneath the wheels, as required by law.
> 
> Just 24 per cent of vehicles complied with regulations covering maintenance, how loads are carried, insurance and how long drivers have been on the road. Officers fined 243 lorry drivers for operating without a licence or working long hours, or for driving with insecure loads, broken lights or running a truck that was in poor condition.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

*Drivers face random searches at nationwide police road-blocks:*

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/d...-at-nationwide-police-roadblocks-1171084.html*

I suppose you could argue the stops are random, but the police target defective vehicles or criminal drivers, neither of those are apparent til the vehicle's been stopped?


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2014)

Does writing in big letters make the point more valid.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

It's cost the text I c&pd was large, so no, no more than posting laughing smileys makes you funny.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2014)

Is it rampant?


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2014)

illegal too?


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2014)

gah


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> *Drivers face random searches at nationwide police road-blocks:*
> 
> *http://www.independent.co.uk/news/d...-at-nationwide-police-roadblocks-1171084.html*
> 
> I suppose you could argue the stops are random, but the police target defective vehicles or criminal drivers, neither of those are apparent til the vehicle's been stopped?


That article is 15 years old. 
But back to the point of allegedly "random" checks. Do you really think that the Police would publicly say anything else? They're hardly likely to announce that they are setting out to target those bad boys from Ireland, and the law breakers from eastern Europe, are they. In the same way that they aren't going to admit to targeting particular nationalities who are, allegedly, more likely to be involved in certain categories of crime in the UK..


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Jan 2014)

Whether the checks are random or targeted simply generates a headline number. It seems pretty clear to me that there are a lot of dangerous vehicles and operators out there, enough to suggest something needs to be done. Add to this the fact that HGV's and to be even more explicit a certain kind of HGV seems to be proportionally greater than others in killing cyclists in particular, suggests to me that there's more than a damn good case to be answered.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> That article is 15 years old.
> They're hardly likely to announce that they are setting out to target those bad boys from Ireland, and the law breakers from eastern Europe, are they.



If that's what they're doing they seem to catch a surprising number of home-grown criminal lorry drivers.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> If that's what they're doing they seem to catch a surprising number of home-grown criminal lorry drivers.


I was merely using that as an example to demonstrate the point that you seem to be missing all through this thread; that Police and/or VOSA checks are mainly TARGETED, not random.


----------



## classic33 (8 Jan 2014)

Something like this covered

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3GYlUdHWKw

Uk company. I can't see a rear plate.


----------



## classic33 (8 Jan 2014)

Tried to find figures for daily usage, by HGV's on the M62. Came across this.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyLV6jHJt28

If they were to pull every HGV, what would the cost be. Last/next* chance to pull them them off the motorway, would be J24.
Usually they will target vehicles that they have been informed about. Often it can be those at the services that have reported them, or they've been caught on camera there.

*This from the viewpoint at the start & dependent on direction of travel.


----------



## classic33 (8 Jan 2014)

Doc333 said:


> Summerdays, I have no problem whatsoever with VOSA going after targeted foreign trucks. These trucks come over here and dont pay road tax like we do, yet these trucks cause more damage to our road network simply because many are overweight and illegal etc. When we visit their country we have to pay tolls ....
> 
> My problem is with the OP who thinks he's found some golden information, because it backs up his own personal view. This is a non story being given oxygen


 How do you explain UK based companies using foreign registered HGV's in their fleet colours. Taking advantage of cheaper taxing systems elsewhere?


----------



## classic33 (8 Jan 2014)

classic33 said:


> Are those wagons actually owned/operated by Irish companies, or English companies taking advantage of a cheaper operating system?
> Stobart have a depot on the North Wall, using Irish registered vehicles.
> *Go down the midlands(Ireland) & you'll come across a company thats known on both sides of the Irish Sea, to those whose job it is to check the vehicles on the roadside. A driver gets caught on one route in, will be taken of that route & come in by another.
> They used to have a red colour scheme.*
> ...


 
See http://forum.truckersworld.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18531

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kf ... z1Fa0OMYd4


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2014)

Brandane said:


> I was merely using that as an example to demonstrate the point that you seem to be missing all through this thread; that Police and/or VOSA checks are mainly TARGETED, not random.



And I wondered if you had any evidence for this? When Mermaid was set up the police said it was random checks, they've said so quite a few times since, can you find any quote from the police that confirms the stops are not random?


----------



## classic33 (9 Jan 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> "Evasive much"? Grammatical claptrap.
> "Neither pedestrians nor cyclists are killing lorry drivers or their employers....." Go on, prove that one.


 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE32unmgFeo


----------



## classic33 (9 Jan 2014)

Operation Safeway!
http://www.commercialmotor.com/late...more-than-4-000-fpns-during-operation-safeway
"_The Metropolitan Police Service’s__ Operation Safeway resulted in cyclists receiving more than 4,000 fixed penalty notices (FPNs) in the five week period to 3 January 2014."_


----------



## Brandane (9 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> And I wondered if you had any evidence for this? When Mermaid was set up the police said it was random checks, they've said so quite a few times since, can you find any quote from the police that confirms the stops are not random?


See post #100.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2014)

Random lorries can be targeted.



> Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) compliance checks, carried out *randomly* at the roadside to give an *unbiased *picture of compliance within the UK fleet, show that in 2003/4 more than one in ten trucks (11.5%), one in six trailers (16.3%) and one in fourteen buses and coaches (7.0%) had mechanical defects. More than one in five trucks (22.4%) had ‘paperwork’ offences that can be life-threatening, most of which were breaches of drivers’ hour rules and tachograph offences.[3]



http://www.brake.org.uk/info-resour...g-the-safety-of-commercial-vehicles-in-the-uk


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2861194, member: 45"]http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2013/may/169615/

_Superintendent Iain Murray, Head of Road Policing said: 

“These operations only highlight the work that is being done on a daily basis. Working along side our partner agencies we will continue to target defective vehicles and drivers who flout the law. Most vocational licence holders drive to a high standard, however there are some who are prepared to put their own and other road users at risk by driving for too long or without a break. This is completely unacceptable and we will continue to target these drivers"_[/quote]

That use of the word is standard practice across all police areas where they want to make their actions sound important and effective. It does not mean they are only stopping, say, foreign drivers, but addressing law breaking by anyone within the _target group_, in this case lorry drivers.

For example:

http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2013/july/buying-alcohol-for-underage/
_"Police target people buying alcohol for those underage"_
or
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Police...torists-time/story-20227495-detail/story.html
_"Police were out again this morning in an operation targeting both cyclists and motorists."_

Do you think this means they are only looking at a specific subgroup of offenders?

The same jargon is used whether police say they're targeting speeders, disorderly behaviour, domestic abuse, cable theft or whatever. The traps are set and anyone who springs one is dealt with.

GC


----------



## subaqua (9 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Lamps? Do you have to carry fuel and replacement wicks as well?


 bulbs is wot you plant in autumn and flower in spring.

incandescent filament lamps or LED lamps


----------



## subaqua (9 Jan 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The title of the thread is *"Illegal behaviour rampant among lorry drivers".* The links I've posted back this up.
> 
> If someone is unable to understand the thread title and think it reads something completely different, like "All lorry drivers break the law" then that's beano's fault for lacking basic reading skills.


 

based on what I have witnessed on my rides in and out of work for the last week the statement could also apply to every single type of road user , from Cyclists through car drivers taxi drivers lorry drivers and bus drivers.

especially that tw@ who nearly rode into the side of me on Morning Lane last night . thankfully there was nothing coming the other way or it would have been squished cyclistS.


----------



## Mickthemove (9 Jan 2014)

Vosa only do random checks at the roadside, but may target a certain type of vehicle on that day, some days its Merc Sprinters whilst other days it Rigids, then curtainsiders etc but it is still random

Targeted checks are usually a visit to a company premises that has a history of prohibition notices against it.

As an ex Haulier, they are a nightmare, you can get a defective notice for the daftest of things that carry no safety risk, but hey they do catch a lot of nutters massively overweight or with unsecure loads etc

To tar all hauliers with the same brush is wrong, many many HGV drivers ride bikes. Morons exist everywhere, driving lorries and riding bikes


----------



## theclaud (9 Jan 2014)

2862664 said:


> Random is a tricky word.


Not to mention overused...


----------

