# Super Long Lorries



## StuartG (1 Dec 2009)

Thought that artics & bendy buses are too dangerous for cyclists (54 & 59 ft)?
How about 83ft: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8388420.stm

Note that no one mentions danger to road users. Obviously the cyclist behind the 'better transport' commentator is invisible when money making killer lorries are at stake ...


----------



## numbnuts (1 Dec 2009)

according to ceefax it was stopped by the police and banned from the road

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8388420.stm


----------



## StuartG (1 Dec 2009)

The police stop was arranged by the promoters to test the legality in court. Hopefully the court will indeed find it illegal. But that is on a technicality of the regulations - not on its impact on the community.

The argument that these lorries will be safer because less are needed is a little weak given that the size of a vehicle is correlated with its danger.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Dec 2009)

There's already a thread in commuting about this - yes, it does seem a strange place to put it  - where you can read my views in more depth. But in short, I'd love a go in one of these, and from the look of the video link on the original BBC report, they don't appear to handle much differently, take up much more road space (apart from the extra length) or present much more danger to other road users than the things that are already out there.


----------



## StuartG (1 Dec 2009)

You don't accept that the present bendy buses & artics present special problems - especially when they make an unexpected right or left?

You are left scrabbling to get clear - or stop and pray the vehicle will clear you OK. The extra length and the ability of a driver to spot a cyclist close in 80 ft to the rear in his mirrors is surely a step change from existing stock.

And yes I have driven HGVs too so can well imagine the dificulties. Mr Denby didn't even deign to mention it. Has he had the danger independenly reviewed before taking it on the road. That I would like to know.

Nice to be on the same side as the rozzers for a change!


----------



## jonesy (1 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> You don't accept that the present bendy buses & artics present special problems - especially when they make an unexpected right or left?
> 
> You are left scrabbling to get clear - or stop and pray the vehicle will clear you OK. The extra length and the ability of a driver to spot a cyclist close in 80 ft to the rear in his mirrors is surely a step change from existing stock.
> 
> ...



Firstly, there is no evidence of a significant safety problem caused by bendy buses -if you have some, then please tell us, and tell Boris, because he hasn't quoted any in support of his very expensive policy to replace them. Clearly they aren't suitable for all routes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be used in principle. Also, don't forget that gettting rid of bendy buses has meant using a far greater number of normal buses, which increases the exposure to risk.

Secondly, you shouldn't group buses and extra long lorries together- they are very different beasts and the Deby lorry is much longer than a bendy bus.

Third, most of those asking to be able to use long HGVs are asking for them to be used on restricted routes, e.g. for long distance motorway trunking. They wouldn't be allowed on local roads. Used for that purpose they offer more efficient use of road space and increased energy efficiency.

That said, I would oppose their introduction because I don't think the road haulage industry's safety record is good enough to trust them with something like that. 

Some research has been done into their likely impacts:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/rmd/project.asp?intProjectID=12704


----------



## StuartG (1 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Firstly, there is no evidence of a significant safety problem caused by bendy buses -if you have some, then please tell us,


Come ride with me along the '40' route. You get compromised often when overtaking at a bus stop. You haven't got acceleration to clear it and if you brake to let it go this causes displeasure and fear of rear shunt by vehicles that could clear it. If you hold your position you are projected into the path of oncoming traffic. Also if the bus in on a curve it obscures all vision of you in its mirrors. It can pull out not know you are there. Finally the old trick of assessing when the bus will move by eyeballing the doors is much more difficult than a conventional bus.


> Secondly, you shouldn't group buses and extra long lorries together- they are very different beasts and the Deby lorry is much longer than a bendy bus.


Nope - why did I quote their differering lengths? I made the point that long existing vehicles present extra hazards so what of super long?


> Third, most of those asking to be able to use long HGVs are asking for them to be used on restricted routes, e.g. for long distance motorway trunking. They wouldn't be allowed on local roads. Used for that purpose they offer more efficient use of road space and increased energy efficiency.


Really? The point Denby was making is that they are street legal. That means anywhere that doesn't have specific restrictions if he can win his case. Ever seen a length restriction?

The economic arguement is tosh. The reduction in carriage costs by this innovation would alter the distribution costs so fewer depots and longer routes. That is the kilometretonnes will increase. That is more freight on the road. OK lower prices in the shops if you live to enjoy.


> That said, I would oppose their introduction because I don't think the road haulage industry's safety record is good enough to trust them with something like that.


Yes - it is interesting that this is a private venture which doesn't appear to have properly researched the consequences and being a bit economical with the benefits for the community. Lets kick it into touch at the RRL for some better analysis.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> You don't accept that the present bendy buses & artics present special problems - especially when they make an unexpected right or left?



As it happens, I didn't say that. Certainly articulated vehicles present their own problems to other road users; I've posted on here before about how difficult it can sometimes be to see a cyclist in the left hand mirror of an artic. What I actually said was that this Denby double lorry doesn't appear to present significantly different hazards to those presented by a normal artic.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Come ride with me along the '40' route. *You get compromised often when overtaking at a bus stop. You haven't got acceleration to clear it and if you brake to let it go this causes displeasure and fear of rear shunt by vehicles that could clear it.* If you hold your position you are projected into the path of oncoming traffic. Also if the bus in on a curve it obscures all vision of you in its mirrors. It can pull out not know you are there. Finally the old trick of assessing when the bus will move by eyeballing the doors is much more difficult than a conventional bus.



To be honest, I would never dream of starting to overtake a long vehicle in the circumstances you describe. As I understand it, you've seen the bus pull over, you (presumably) know that buses don't remain stationary for long, you can't see the driver's mirror and you suspect the driver hasn't seen you, yet you still think an overtake is a sensible idea? I'm not having a dig at you here, but I'd have a long hard look at your own behaviour on the roads before worrying about the theoretical impact of a longer lorry. 




> Really? The point Denby was making is that they are street legal. That means anywhere that doesn't have specific restrictions if he can win his case. *Ever seen a length restriction*?



Yes, plenty. Usually, surprise surprise, on roads which are unsuitable for artics. If, as I suspect, this long lorry handles similarly to a standard artic as it appears to on the video, it won't be much more difficult to get around most town centres anyway, and no doubt if they are made road legal, there will be plenty of signs erected to tell the drivers where they can't go. After all, there are some bridges you can't get a 16' high trailer under, but no one lets that stop them being used on the road, do they?
But from what I've read about this, that's not what Denby has designed it for. He has plenty to lose in terms of bad publicity and recovery costs if the thing is spending half its working life stuck in town centres, after all. 



> The economic arguement is tosh. The reduction in carriage costs by this innovation would alter the distribution costs so fewer depots and longer routes. That is the kilometretonnes will increase. *That is more freight on the road.*



I don't think that's true. Consider my last place of employment ... every night I was one of five drivers trunking freight between Wolverhampton and Rochdale. The amount we were moving would not have increased if we'd each had one of these double lorries; we'd simply have been able to do it with two large trucks and a standard artic instead of five double decker trailers. Or the job I had before that one, which involved delivering mattress foam to a bed manufacturer. Each trailer was crammed full of this stuff, floor to roof and front to back, and we were running with perhaps five tons on the back. We used to do three or four of these a day. That number of journeys would be roughly halved if we'd been able to take twice as much on each trip. In neither case has the amount of freight being moved increased, you'll notice; it's simply being moved more efficiently. An awful lot of modern freight "cubes out" before it "weighs out".


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

stuart, you didn't read the link I posted, did you?


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> stuart, you didn't read the link I posted, did you?


I did - and I took time to relate it to this issue. I'm sorry you missed the point and hence did not critique my suppositions. Forgive me for repeating two of the most important issues:

1) The report says longer lorries mean more fatalities per lorry but the lower number of lorries mean less fatalities. It appears this proposition is made on a fixed level of freight. This is what I questioned. Denby says, correctly, that longer lorries will decrease the carriage costs. Decreased carriage costs will make longer journeys more viable. More places can be served from fewer depots. This is a standard conclusion from any distribution model. Is the summary at fault for leaving this out or have I misread?

2) This is a maverick attempt to squeeze through a legal loophole and not a planned introduction of a new type of vehicle on safe routes as assumed in your link. There are no length restrictions around here - hence the bendy buses.

Finally criticisms of my riding technique. Yes quite valid and I am aware of some of my inadequacies. Which is why I did some retraining last week only 50 years after getting my proficiency badge. I'm not good enough. But I doubt if my trainer would put me in the bottom 50% of cyclists by skill and judgement. If experienced and skilled riders get regualry taken out by HGVs as they do in London what hope for the average, for the beginner?

I happen to believe that cycling should be for all and not just the elite for many reasons. Train them as much as possible but this Super Long initiative does appear a step backward in accommodating cyclists with mainstream traffic.

As a side issue even on the so called safe routes this type of vehicle will present new challenges to motorists (who also make mistakes) with the lack of a bailout option when they get their overtaking wrong.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> I did - and I took time to relate it to this issue. I'm sorry you missed the point and hence did not critique my suppositions. Forgive me for repeating two of the most important issues:
> 
> 1) The report says longer lorries mean more fatalities per lorry but the lower number of lorries mean less fatalities. It appears this proposition is made on a fixed level of freight. This is what I questioned. Denby says, correctly, that longer lorries will decrease the carriage costs. Decreased carriage costs will make longer journeys more viable. More places can be served from fewer depots. This is a standard conclusion from any distribution model. Is the summary at fault for leaving this out or have I misread?
> 
> ...



The reason I questioned whether you'd read the report was that after I posted the link you said "Lets kick it into touch at the RRL for some better analysis.". The report was written by TRL, formerly known as RRL...

The problem with your argument 1. is that it could apply to any efficiency improvement. Would you argue that the haulage industry shouldn't be permitted to use more efficient engines, because this will reduce the cost of freight and hence encourage more transport? 'rebound effects' are well known in transport policy, and need to be addressed through overall taxes and charges on transport, but it would be perverse to oppose efficiency improvements in principle for that reason.

Re argument 2. Yes, I agree that transport policy shouldn't be changed through the exploitation of loopholes. And I've already said why I'd oppose the introduction of longer vehicles as things stand. But there is rather more to the issue than that, and as the report I linked to indicates the arguments aren't as black and white as you suggest.

And the safety case against bendy buses has still not been demonstrated objectively... the consequences of which are lots of money being spent replacing them with a much greater number of normal vehicles that are less efficient at doing the job and increasing total exposure to risk.

Edit- the DfT link goes to the wrong place. You can get the full report here:
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...fects_if_Permitted_in_the_UK_Final_Report.htm

you'll need to register to get the PDF


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

I am not arguing for or against the size of lorries as such. Just this unplanned and probably under researched initiative.

It is the government's job to balance the benefits/disbenefits of any lorry configuration. Heavier lorries are good for lorry operators who save money but bad for road providers who have to spend money to support the axles. There is a bargain to be struck between the two. What is it now, 44 tonnes?

Here we have super long lorries with safety, economic and co2 emmission implications. The report you quote appears to suggest the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. As reported in the summary - sorry I have no time to read the full report - it displays a failure to take into account a growth in road transport that would result from lower costs. If this were so, (and I would be grateful if you have read the report to confirm it one way or another), then it is worthless or even dangerous.

The Denby guy only put one side. The RRL/TRL is supposed to balance. In the old days people were suspicious that its analysis was bent to favour the road transport lobby. It would be good to see them do a study on this configuration so we could test the analysis to assure ourselves they are now representing the interests of all road users - including us!


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> ..Here we have super long lorries with safety, economic and co2 emmission implications. The report you quote appears to suggest the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. As reported in the summary - sorry I have no time to read the full report -* it displays a failure to take into account a growth in road transport that would result from lower costs.* If this were so, (and I would be grateful if you have read the report to confirm it one way or another), then it is worthless or even dangerous.
> 
> ...



Re bold bit. I've already dealt with this- again, that argument can be used against any any efficiency improvement, like improving mpg. It's called the rebound effect, it's a reason to ensure that fuel prices and road charges are maintained high enough to constrain demand, but isn't a reason to oppose efficiency improvements in the first place. Would you advocate a ban on high mpg engines because they reduce costs too much?

If you don't have time to read reports on the subject then that's fine, but that doesn't put you in strong position to claim it to be 'under-researched'! And it was you who specifically asked for a RRL report, so I've pointed you to one but now you suggest it may be biased! I can only do so much!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> It is the government's job to balance the benefits/disbenefits of any lorry configuration. Heavier lorries are good for lorry operators who save money but bad for road providers who have to spend money to support the axles. There is a bargain to be struck between the two. What is it now, 44 tonnes?



It's not the total weight which is the most damaging factor (in terms of road surfaces), but the configuration. The six axle artic, which is the most common type in the UK (and the one I drive every night) is about the most damaging possible, especially with non - steering axles. The continental "wagon and drag" (a standard rigid lorry with a trailer the same length behind it) is much easier on the road surface, especially if the trailer has a steering front axle. That Denby outfit looks to me more like a steering wagon and drag than anything else, albeit with two trailers instead of one. Whatever, it looks like it'll cause significantly less damage to the road surface than the thing I drive.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It's not the total weight which is the most damaging factor (in terms of road surfaces), but the configuration. The six axle artic, which is the most common type in the UK (and the one I drive every night) is about the most damaging possible, especially with non - steering axles. ...



I thought it was the 5 axle 38 tonner that was the worst? It is weight per axle that makes the difference to road wear. I've seen a table somewhere showing axle weights and road wear, I'll look for it some time, but ought to be doing something else at the moment!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> I thought it was the 5 axle 38 tonner that was the worst? It is weight per axle that makes the difference to road wear. I've seen a table somewhere showing axle weights and road wear, I'll look for it some time, but ought to be doing something else at the moment!



Maybe it is ... the point that the standard artic (short tractor unit, long multi - axle trailer) is more damaging than a wagon and drag still stands, though. Weight limit on 5 axles is now 41 tonnes, by the way; even worse!


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Re bold bit. I've already dealt with this- again, that argument can be used against any any efficiency improvement, like improving mpg. It's called the rebound effect, it's a reason to ensure that fuel prices and road charges are maintained high enough to constrain demand, but isn't a reason to oppose efficiency improvements in the first place. Would you advocate a ban on high mpg engines because they reduce costs too much?


I take from your answer that they have not analysed the growth in road traffic as a result of lowering costs. Hence their conclusion that fatalities will fall is unfounded. Indeed the fact that longer vehicle creates more death is what should concern us.

To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers. Similary there is no benefit to society (and maybe a big disbenefit) if superlongs allow the distribution trade to move out cost from depots into transport.

The underlying strategy should be to reduce transport miles. That's one reason why we stopped building motorways (which are much more efficient in mpg than ordinary roads). But an mpg reduction that increases miles driven is not good. Any initiative which makes the only carbon free wheeled transport option less attractive/more dangerous is not good.

I'm truly shocked at the nieveity of that report. It looks like things don't change in the DfT.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. *There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers.* Similary there is no benefit to society (and maybe a big disbenefit) if superlongs allow the distribution trade to move out cost from depots into transport.



But that's the fundamental difference between bendy buses and these long lorries: the long lorries do carry more per journey and will reduce the number of journeys.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> *To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers*.


whatever it suggests, all the evidence points in the direction of bendy's being no more of a hazard than double deckers. And double deckers take up to 90 - bendys take 140


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> I take from your answer that they have not analysed the growth in road traffic as a result of lowering costs [1]. Hence their conclusion that fatalities will fall is unfounded. Indeed the fact that longer vehicle creates more death is what should concern us.[2]
> 
> To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers. Similary there is no benefit to society (and maybe a big disbenefit) if superlongs allow the distribution trade to move out cost from depots into transport.
> 
> ...



[1] I take it from your answer that you still haven't grasped the point- we don't stop trying to improve efficiency just because of rebound effects! Otherwise we'd now stop promoting efficient lamp bulbs, insultating homes etc!

[2] you haven't substantiated this. 

[3] see 1. Are you really saying we shouldn't improve energy efficiency?? I suggest you do some reading on the rebound effect if you are going to keep mis-applying it:
http://www.transportclimate.org/

[4] You'd earlier said you hadn't read it, now you accuse it of being naieve! Have you read it now? It is rather long to form such an opinion from so quick a read... and lest anyone forget, it was you who said it should be studied by RRL (TRL), I've directed you to a TRL report and now you don't like it because it doesnt' draw simplistic black and white conclusions to support your argument...


----------



## bonj2 (2 Dec 2009)

These lorries would be fine, as all lorries would be, if they would just have a little bit of sense and confine them to major trunk roads.
If you listen to the traffic reports on radio 2 in the morning, you notice that ALL the traffic hotspots that are reported are a lorry's fault. Northallerton is snarled up because a _lorry_ has jacknifed. The A31 is blocked because a _lorry_ has left the carriageway. The north circular roundabout is at a standstill due to a broken down _lorry_. Congestion around biggleswade due to an accident with a car and a _lorry_. If they were confined to trunk roads we wouldn't have this problem. The problems they cause must cost the economy more than the entire lorry industry generates!

The lorries that we've got now are far too big to thrash their way along minor roads and roar through sleep villages, let alone super-big ones.
But trundling along a straight motorway, and it doesn't (usually) cause anybody too much grief, regardless of how long it is.

It isn't the length of the lorry that's the problem, it's the fact we let lorries on minor roads.

The solution to this is easy imho - only let lorries go on roads that are green or blue on google maps, and NO using the outside lane INCLUDING (read: especially) the A1
then they can be as long as they like.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2009)

way of topic, Jonesy, but after haunting internet sites run by bus-spotters I've come up with this gem - an estimate of the cost of replacing bendys based on tender prices. http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2009/01/05/bendy-bus-contract-costs-in-full/

Route Bendy Premium (£pa)
507 £214,713.00
521 £351,103.00
38 £2,784,000.00
18 £1,895,489.36
149 £1,599,319.15
73 £2,547,063.83
25 £2,547,063.83
12 £1,836,255.32
207 £1,599,319.15
29 £1,717,787.23
436 £1,540,085.11
453 £1,362,382.98
Total: £19,994,581.96

looks like Johnson's little phobia is going to cost us (sorry, me, because I don't think you live in London...) about £20million a year. And this doesn't take account of the congestion costs. Drat and double drat the man!


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

Interesting...no doubt Ben and Stuart will be able to come up with £20million per year in reduced accident costs?


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

Bit of a contradiction in the above. First Rhythm Thief - please re-read what I have repeated about the connection between cost and companies switching to more transport. 

Simon - so if longer lorries are more dangerous than shorter ones - why do buses not follow the same rule? Do you really find riding past two bendy buses in a row not more intimidating than 3 double-deckers? Re capacity - I think you will find the number of seats around the same. The fact that you can crush in more standing customers (and collect less revenue) at rush hours does mean bendies occupy more road area across the day then satisfying the same demand with double-deckers which are both run at frequencies that usually does not require standing. Given that you are a South Londoner you might want to compare the 40 & 176 which have a long overlap.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Bit of a contradiction in the above. First Rhythm Thief - please re-read what I have repeated about the connection between cost and companies switching to more transport.



As far as I'm aware, I've responded to what you've written with an argument as to why it's wrong. Do let me know if I'm misrepresenting you, but your argument is that these long lorries will lead to more freight on the roads; mine is that this isn't nrecessarily the case because a lot of freight fills a trailer in volumetric terms long before it gets close to the weight limit. Therefore, one lorry towing two trailers will take as much of this freight as two lorries towing one trailer each. That's one journey as opposed to two.


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> Interesting...no doubt Ben and Stuart will be able to come up with £20million per year in reduced accident costs?


Nope - they are a mistake we should live with. I truly resent the extra scrappage costs Boris is placing on taxpayers and the cuts in new public transport Boris has done solely to make a political point.

Except the hire bikes. Hopefully even Boris can get something right?


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> [2] you haven't substantiated this.


Nope: YOU did. From your link "As for safety risks, in the case of large LHVs, these would likely increase per vehicle km"


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Nope: YOU did. From your link "As for safety risks, in the case of large LHVs, these would likely increase per vehicle km"



... which isn't the same as total accidents, which is what you referred to.


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> ... which isn't the same as total accidents. Just like the bendy buses...


Quite. It depends on the actual increased risk and if there is any corresponding reduction in the number of vehicles run. In the case of bendies there is a reduction at peak on the corresponding number of double-deckers but about the same out of peak. The TRL report doesn't address the effect of lowering costs of high volume/low weight transport costs.

You say "I've directed you to a TRL report and now you don't like it because it doesnt' draw simplistic black and white conclusions to support your argument..."

That is outrageous when I was only pointing out it doesn't support yours and why. You also wrongly assume I support the scappage of bendies and more. All I am asking is to try and get some good objective evidence on this topic. You are making assumptions about beliefs I do not have and even said I do not have.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Quite. It depends on the actual increased risk and if there is any corresponding reduction in the number of vehicles run. In the case of bendies there is a reduction at peak on the corresponding number of double-deckers but about the same out of peak. The TRL report doesn't address the effect of lowering costs of high volume/low weight transport costs.
> 
> You say "I've directed you to a TRL report and now you don't like it because it doesnt' draw simplistic black and white conclusions to support your argument..."
> 
> That is outrageous when I was only pointing out it doesn't support yours and why. You also wrongly assume I support the scappage of bendies and more. All I am asking is to try and get some good objective evidence on this topic. You are making assumptions about beliefs I do not have and even said I do not have.




Eh? What have I said that the report contradicts (which I drew to your attention, and you haven't yet had much time to read). 

And sorry, but your call for objective evidence looks rather weak when the only reason you got challenged in this thread is because you kicked off with unsubtantiated opinions on both bendy buses and lorries, and when pointed to an in-depth study your first reaction was to claim you didn't have time to read it!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> ... and when pointed to an in-depth study your first reaction was to claim you didn't have time to read it!



Hmmm. Where have we seen that before?


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

jonesy said:


> And sorry, but your call for objective evidence looks rather weak when the only reason you got challenged in this thread is because you kicked off with unsubtantiated opinions on both bendy buses and lorries, and when pointed to an in-depth study your first reaction was to claim you didn't have time to read it!


You really now have me confused. You point me to a report summary which explicitly says that longer vehicles are more likely cause injury. When I repeat that you say it is unsubstantiated. You then accuse me of not accepting the facts in the report.

The only important issue, which I will repeat for the umpteenth time, is whether the increase in risk from these vehicles is reduced sufficiently by the reduction in vehicle miles?

The report say yes - if the tonnes.miles is kept constant. That is unrealistic as even the DfT consider cost and mileage to be inversely correlated (and you yourself implicitly when mentioning fuel duty and road pricing).

All I am asking is that this effect is objectively studied. What is the increased risk, is it effect purely on length or the way the articulation reduces vision. I don't know what the result would be. You appear not to want that.

Why?


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Simon - so if longer lorries are more dangerous than shorter ones - why do buses not follow the same rule?.


I prefer evidence to rules. And, yes I'm familiar with most of the bendy routes in London. And we've done the capacity thing time and time again - in relation to the 38 and 73 in particular.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> You really now have me confused. You point me to a report summary which explicitly says that longer vehicles are more likely cause injury. When I repeat that you say it is unsubstantiated. You then accuse me of not accepting the facts in the report. [1]
> 
> The only important issue, which I will repeat for the umpteenth time, is whether the increase in risk from these vehicles is reduced sufficiently by the reduction in vehicle miles?
> 
> ...



I agree that you are confused. 

[1] What you said was "Indeed the fact that longer vehicle creates more death... " - perhaps you should have been more precise? The point is whether there is an overall increase in accidents, and report suggests otherwise as the total mileage will fall for the same goods.

[2]That was the conclusion of the report. I take it you are talking about price elasticity of demand? For transport this is signfificantly lower than 1, so a 10% change in transport costs has more like a 1% change in transport demand. The elasticities for freight transport will be particularly low, because the cost of transport is only a small part of the total cost of most goods.

[3]yes, and I've given you a reference to such a study!

[4] why don't you read the report? It is very detailed, looks at the pros and cons in a whole variety of areas very objectively. As I said earlier, the arguments are not black and white as your first posts suggested, and I woldn't actually support the introduction of these vehicles as things stand. However, even if we agree on the final conclusion I am going to carry on arguing with you if you keep putting forward uninformed opinions and don't read the report of the study you say you wanted!.


----------



## StuartG (2 Dec 2009)

Jonesy - you slander me yet again about black and white - which is a concept you introduced to the discussion. My whole point is that IT IS NOT BLACK & WHITE (sorry) as Mr Denby declaimed. But then why should he? - he is an interested party.

We are talking about increased risk. The increase will be a factor of this particular configuration and not purely proportional to length. The elasticity will be a factor of this particular market. Neither of us knows the best estimate for either and whether the latter is sufficient to cancel the former. If it is I don't have a problem - as I have made clear.

I just want to know. I suppose I could have read the whole report in the time it has taken this afternoon - and I do have a day job. Luckily I am the boss! The reason I didn't was when I asked if it addressed the effect of cost and volume your answer suggested it didn't - I even checked back to you on that.

Well work has to be done. I think I have nothing to add except that road safety is my prime concern and I hope we both agree is never simple and often surprising. 

Cheers


----------



## sheddy (5 Sep 2011)

Current CTC Campaign here - http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=170&ea.campaign.id=11765

CTC will redirect the form to your own MP


----------



## sheddy (6 Sep 2011)

It looks like the Govt may have this sewn up. It seems existing lorry - trailer combos can already be 60ft, so that allowing single 60ft lorries will be OK.
Oh Bum


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Sep 2011)

sheddy said:


> It looks like the Govt may have this sewn up. It seems existing lorry - trailer combos can already be 60ft, so that allowing single 60ft lorries will be OK.
> Oh Bum



What's changed then? The thing I drive every single night for around 300 miles each trip is about 60ft long.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Sep 2011)

Incidentally, safety concerns aside, I can't be the only person on here who would jump at the chance to have a go in an artic pulling two trailers, like the thing Denby built.


----------



## slowmotion (6 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Incidentally, safety concerns aside, I can't be the only person on here who would jump at the chance to have a go in an artic pulling two trailers, like the thing Denby built.



RT, I think you might find my attempts to reverse it faintly amusing.


----------



## growingvegetables (6 Sep 2011)

Just an anecdotal fwiw on bendy buses - the standard of driving competence shown by First Leeds is ..... let's say, variable  ; from the superb to the numptiest cowboy.

But the FTR purple bendy is something else! Another world. I live on their route, and regularly cycle good stretches of it. And the standard of driving these guys and lasses show is on another planet - so professional, so consistently and extraordinarily respectful of me on a bike, indeed embarrassingly courteous on occasions.

Just guessing - they're probably absolute pigs to drive, and First made a big investment in driver training (sorry, they're not drivers, they're "pilots" - I kid you not!)... and maybe in management too?

Dammit - if they can do it for one route, they sure as **** should do it for all their routes, including their other bendy bus routes.


----------



## jonesy (6 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> ...
> Just guessing - they're probably absolute pigs to drive, and First made a big investment in driver training (*sorry, they're not drivers, they're "pilots" - I kid you not!*)... and maybe in management too?
> 
> ...



Sainsbury's would call them "colleagues"


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Sep 2011)

jonesy said:


> Sainsbury's would call them "colleagues"



Of all the things (and there are many) thyat annoy me in this world, nothing annoys me as much as that. In the first place, "colleagues" is nopt a cuddly alternative to the word "staff"; it's just bad English in this context. And in the second place, I object to being patronised by a huge multinational company pretending that they somehow care about me. Not that I work for Sainsbury's, but I have in the past and it still annoys me now.l


----------



## waggoner (7 Sep 2011)

Lorry driver here too. I've not read the comments properly yet and bit too late at night now. Artics are up to 55' in lenght and waggon and drags can go to 62' in lenght.
Lorries are here to stay!! no matter what, our railway network is gone as such, and even if they did open it all back up,, you'll still need lorries at each end anyway,,,so now you have 2 lorries and 1 train,,, who's going to foot the cost of that?? because it will be dearer!! you and me??? 
I don't think its so much to do with the lenght of lorries, i would say its more to do with who's driving them,,,just as there's bad/dangerous car drivers so there is bad/dangerous hgv drivers!! i've been cut up myself whilst driving..

I ride my bike to work then jump into a 40 tonne artic,, one extreme to the other i guess,,but as a cyclist when i drive around city's it makes you watch out a bit more.

So maybe its a case of cyclists and drivers being made aware that lorries cannot turn on a sixpence,, they need a little bit more room to turn,, and if they swing out to turn a corner,,,not to zoom up the inside. 

We all got horror stories to tell of inpatient drivers/riders,,,,,,theres idiot's out there on all sides!!!
So as someone said above,,driver training,,but on all drivers regardless of it being a car,lorry or bike..

Thats enough,,,off to bed now!!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Sep 2011)

I think you could use twin trailer lorries for the job I do fairly easily. My route is basically up the M5 from Gloucester to Cannock twice each night. All but 40 miles of the 300 mile trip is on motorway, and most of the non motorway stuff is dual carriageway. There's maybe four miles of single carriageway road. I agree that manoevring these things around a city centre is never going to work, but using them on long single drop runs could save an awful lot of diesel. And not incidentally, give me a much shorter night at work.


----------



## MartinC (7 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I think you could use twin trailer lorries for the job I do fairly easily. My route is basically up the M5 from Gloucester to Cannock twice each night. All but 40 miles of the 300 mile trip is on motorway, and most of the non motorway stuff is dual carriageway. There's maybe four miles of single carriageway road. I agree that manoevring these things around a city centre is never going to work, but using them on long single drop runs could save an awful lot of diesel. And not incidentally, give me a much shorter night at work.




......or no job at all.


----------



## waggoner (7 Sep 2011)

MartinC said:


> ......or no job at all.




Thats worrying too,,as the lorries get bigger so they don't need so many. It's happened with the double deck trailers, 2 of them equals 3 normal trailers,,,,so one less driver needed!!!!


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Sep 2011)

do these longer lorries exert more 'suckage' as they pass you on a straight road?


----------



## slowmotion (7 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> do these longer lorries exert more 'suckage' as they pass you on a straight road?



I think that the suction would increase because ( according to Bernoulli's Principle) it is caused by the *volume* of displaced air, amongst other things.

I could be wrong...it's been a while since physics A-level.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Sep 2011)

slowmotion said:


> I think that the suction would increase because ( according to Bernoulli's Principle) it is caused by the *volume* of displaced air, amongst other things.
> 
> I could be wrong...it's been a while since physics A-level.



If the frontal area is the same, would they not displace a similar volume of air to a truck with a single trailer? (I never took physics A level!)


----------



## slowmotion (8 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> If the frontal area is the same, would they not displace a similar volume of air to a truck with a single trailer? (I never took physics A level!)



A bit late for me to consider the finer points of physics, RT, but here is my ( iffy) take on it.

Take your truck and look at it from the front. Now take a very large sheet of plywood ( 18mm thick) and a jigsaw and cut it in the same profile as the front of your truck. Now drive that plywood cut-out down the road at 60 miles an hour when it is mounted on a Mini... (the Mini is supposed to have no effect on this dodgy experiment). Do this next to a cyclist. My guess is that he will wobble a bit.

Repeat this with a box lashed to the back of the cut-out that is 60 metres long. My guess is that the cyclist will wobble a bit more. Bernoulli, he don't lie.


----------



## Lurker (16 Sep 2011)

Good question. From dim recollection of 'A' level physics, I can't think of any obvious reason why suckage/metre length of vehicle should be less in a longer vehicle. (It would be interesting to know). But clearly any 'suckage' is going to continue for longer - which presumably means increased risk for any cyclist, or other vehicle, that's being overtaken.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Sep 2011)

StuartG said:


> Thought that artics & bendy buses are too dangerous for cyclists (54 & 59 ft)?
> How about 83ft: http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/8388420.stm
> 
> Note that no one mentions danger to road users. Obviously the cyclist behind the 'better transport' commentator is invisible when money making killer lorries are at stake ...



If you go onto wikipedia and type in 'road train', the first line of the article mentions they are used in 'remote areas', that anyone can think such a vehicle is suitable for the roads we have (any of them) in Britain is beyond me.

Our roads simply aren't big enough.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> If you go onto wikipedia and type in 'road train', the first line of the article mentions they are used in 'remote areas', that anyone can think such a vehicle is suitable for the roads we have (any of them) in Britain is beyond me.
> 
> Our roads simply aren't big enough.



I think they'd be fine on motorways. You couldn't use them around towns, obviously, but on most "big" roads I think they'd be ok. As a driver of some pretty big vehicles, I suppose it's possible that I'm a bit blase about them, but I really believe that if you had a road train on a UK motorway with an experienced and conscientious driver behind the wheel, there wouldn't be any real problems. In fact, one enormous lorry might be safer and more efficient than two merely big ones.


----------



## wiggydiggy (20 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I think they'd be fine on motorways. You couldn't use them around towns, obviously, but on most "big" roads I think they'd be ok. As a driver of some pretty big vehicles, I suppose it's possible that I'm a bit blase about them, but I really believe that if you had a road train on a UK motorway with an experienced and conscientious driver behind the wheel, there wouldn't be any real problems. In fact, one enormous lorry might be safer and more efficient than two merely big ones.



It'd probably be more efficient yes - I dont disagree with any of the 'economic' reasons otherwise they wouldnt be used elsewhere so successfully.

I still dont think even on motorways they'd be safe, its not just the chap driving it but the behaviour of everyone around it. Theres other things which bother me like what is the effect of high wind on them, do the back trailers start snaking about or is the whole thing at risk of tipping? 

And what of our famous 'rubber necking' which creates the phantom road block on motorways, I dont think the traffic moves freely enough for these to be used.

No I think if we want to create trains, we should keep them on the tracks.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> It'd probably be more efficient yes - I dont disagree with any of the 'economic' reasons otherwise they wouldnt be used elsewhere so successfully.
> 
> I still dont think even on motorways they'd be safe, its not just the chap driving it but the behaviour of everyone around it. Theres other things which bother me like what is the effect of high wind on them, do the back trailers start snaking about or is the whole thing at risk of tipping?
> 
> ...



Well, there I do agree with you. I'd love to see the return of the local pick up goods train, and the days when every town and most villages had easy access to a station which had freight facilities. Sadly, it'll never happen in the era of the Tesco RDC.


----------



## wiggydiggy (21 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Well, there I do agree with you. I'd love to see the return of the local pick up goods train, and the days when every town and most villages had easy access to a station which had freight facilities. Sadly, it'll never happen in the era of the Tesco RDC.



Whats an RDC?

Its is sad isnt it that everything is now 'by road', but thats another story....


----------



## david1701 (21 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Whats an RDC?
> 
> Its is sad isnt it that everything is now 'by road', but thats another story....



dam straight, my nearest railway station is Exeter at 50 miles :s such a pain if I want to go on a ride in another part of the country


----------



## sheddy (22 Sep 2011)

RDC - I'd take a punt at Regional Distribution Centre or Remote Distribution Centre


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Sep 2011)

Regional Distribution Centre it is. They're places expressly designed for the low level torment of lorry drivers and any driver will spend approximately six times as long at RDCs every week as they do at home. I hate the places, and thank whatever gods there may be that I don't deliver to them any more.


----------



## BluesDave (23 Sep 2011)

Lorries frighten me when I'm out on my bike. I always treat them as something that actually wants to kill me or worse.
I never go up the inside of them unless they are stopped and not likely to move untill I pass. I would never cut one up and I always sit up as straight as possible on my bike when I'm near one in the hope that they can see me.
It can be difficult to position yourself right to be seen by the driver in the cab but apparrently the rule of thumb is if you can see the the mirrors on each side you can be seen.
As for this 80' triple juggernaut I sincerely hope they are never allowed on Britains roads.
Firstly our roads are not big enough, many high streets whose shops get deliveries by lorry in London are mostly blocked off on one side when dropping. They actually park partly on the pavement which is illegal.
I also think that demographically speaking there are far more serious injuries and deaths to cyclists per ratio of lorries to cyclists opposed to cars to cyclists on a weekly basis in any event. Particularly in London.
That said I utilise the same precautions with regards to buses, cars and vans. I choose to remember that I am not protected in a strong metal box unlike the motorists.

Am I nervous cyclist, perhaps I am, am I a skilled & experienced cyclist, moderately so. In any event the number of vehicles on our roads needs to start being restricted. 22million at the last count for an Island this size thats just too many.
Am I totally anti car, van etc. No I'm not and I have to start driving soon. This is only because I now have tendonitis in both shoulders which is aggravated by carrying heavy bags of dust sheets, tools etc.

I'm actually very nervous of driving to the point of having a phobia but thats a personal issue. In fact I don't even want to learn to drive and I never really have done. Needless to say I pity who-ever my driving instructor is going to be.


----------



## Jezston (29 Sep 2011)

May I ask why these type of lorries are illegal but double-trailer lorries aren't?

There's an Argos one that regularly passes me on my ride home from work and it isn't desperately pleasant to say the least.


----------



## 4F (29 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> May I ask why these type of lorries are illegal but double-trailer lorries aren't?
> 
> There's an Argos one that regularly passes me on my ride home from work and it isn't desperately pleasant to say the least.



It's to do with overall length which currently is limited to 18.75 metres before you have to start using trombone trailers and permits.

If these super longs are used on the pallet networks between hubs which are located on motorways / dual carriageways then personally I don't see it as being a problem. The only issue would be preventing any rouge / stupid hauliers from using them on routes which are unsuitable. 

As for rail, the rail network in this country is so ****** up it really is more hassle than its worth.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> May I ask why these type of lorries are illegal but double-trailer lorries aren't?
> 
> There's an Argos one that regularly passes me on my ride home from work and it isn't desperately pleasant to say the least.



That's not a double trailer lorry. It's what's known as a "wagon and drag" and is a normal rigid lorry towing a short trailer, as opposed to a tractor unit towing a long trailer. At least, it is if it's the same as all the other Argos ones around the country. 
The only people who are currently allowed to operate genuine double trailer lorries on Britain's roads are - for reasons which escape me - fairground operators.


----------



## 4F (29 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> That's not a double trailer lorry. It's what's known as a "wagon and drag" and is a normal rigid lorry towing a short trailer, as opposed to a tractor unit towing a long trailer. At least, it is if it's the same as all the other Argos ones around the country.
> The only people who are currently allowed to operate genuine double trailer lorries on Britain's roads are - for reasons which escape me - fairground operators.



Argos seem to run those a lot however it makes sense as a lot of them are swop bodies. Usually at about 6 if I am still at work I can see about 50 parked up from my office window, they don't like to work late....


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Sep 2011)

Wagon & drags make more sense for any loads which bulk out before they weigh out. I used to drive them for Chep and we could get 30 stacks of pallets on a wagon and drag, as opposed to 26 on an artic. They're just that bit longer. They cause less damage to the road surface than a six axle artic, too.


----------

