Woman cyclist killed in Victoria (tipper truck)

[srw]

It may be a one off cost, but it will be across their entire fleets. Presumably this cost will then be spread over the lifetime of the vehicles. Large and small companies, right down to owner operators.

How much?

 

[classic33]

How much?

Will it cost? Depends on the vehicle. Then there's the time they're not actually in use to be factored in. Standing idle they're losing money. Cost of fitting replacements as stuff wears out, new equipment bought which then has to have it fitted to it.

Whole thing went on here about a year ago, giving a cost breakdown. But didn't include time lost. Only difference is now they say all.

 

[srw]

Will it cost? Depends on the vehicle. Then there's the time they're not actually in use to be factored in. Standing idle they're losing money. Cost of fitting replacements as stuff wears out, new equipment bought which then has to have it fitted to it.

Whole thing went on here about a year ago, giving a cost breakdown. But didn't include time lost. Only difference is now they say all.

Give us a ball-park estimate.

 

[glenn forger]

It may be a one off cost, but it will be across their entire fleets. Presumably this cost will then be spread over the lifetime of the vehicles.

Construction companies use road freight and haulage because it's so cheap. It's so cheap because the entire road haulage industry enjoys gigantic subsidies, without even including the foreign truckers who don't even fuel up in this country, so their direct fiscal burden, bearing in mind they're the most dangerous vehicles, is zero.

 

[classic33]

Give us a ball-park estimate.

I've already posted the information, including cost(now out of date), and got shouted down for posting it.
There's a saying for this "Seek and ye shall find".

 

[srw]

I've already posted the information, including cost(now out of date), and got shouted down for posting it.
There's a saying for this "Seek and ye shall find".

Frankly it would have been quicker for you to find it, since you knew what you were looking for, than it was to moan about it.

Here it is

Rough cost for the equipment to become compulsory if Labour win the next General Election.
Figures given for typical 18-tonner.
Reversing Alarm: £130.
Rear-view Camera: £450.
Flashing Lights & Beacons: £650.
Daytime Running Lights: £350.
Class VI(Cyclops) Mirror: £25.
Rear Warning Signs For Cyclists: £3
The above to be fitted within a month of the election, the following by December 2017.
Side Underrun Guards: N/A.
Blind Spot Elimination Devices: £450.
Audible Warning For Cyclists: £130.
Comes to about £2,200.
An Artic would cost disproportionately more & Tipper Operators can add a further £2,500 for Side Underrun Bars & Sheeting System.

Uncertainty yet as to wether the beacons will be required to be on at all times. If so what about vehicles already oblliged to have these fitted & in operation when on the road.

That's £2,200 per lorry, except for ...errr... all those lorries that already have them (which, for many of those items, seems to be most of them). The local rental place would clear that inside 3 weeks of renting each lorry - except that in practice it would probably just put up prices by a percent or two to pay for it over two or three years, just like it does with every cost.

Or, to put it another way, £2,200 is roughly the cost of diesel for driving one of these lorries about 6,000 miles. Which is probably 2% of the mileage expected out of an engine.

If any business can't cope with an increase in input costs of 1% to 2%, then it's probably going to fail anyway.

 

[classic33]

Frankly it would have been quicker for you to find it, since you knew what you were looking for, than it was to moan about it.

Here it is

That's £2,200 per lorry, except for ...errr... all those lorries that already have them (which, for many of those items, seems to be most of them). The local rental place would clear that inside 3 weeks of renting each lorry - except that in practice it would probably just put up prices by a percent or two to pay for it over two or three years, just like it does with every cost.

Or, to put it another way, £2,200 is roughly the cost of diesel for driving one of these lorries about 6,000 miles. Which is probably 2% of the mileage expected out of an engine.

If any business can't cope with an increase in input costs of 1% to 2%, then it's probably going to fail anyway.

Suggest you actually read the figures given.

 

[srw]

Suggest you actually read the figures given.

£2,200 per lorry is your number, not mine. Which bit of my analysis is wrong?

 

[classic33]

£2,200 per lorry is your number, not mine. Which bit of my analysis is wrong?

Read it all, then give the figure.

 

[srw]

Read it all, then give the figure.

If you really can't be bothered, I shall have to assume that you don't have an answer.

 

[classic33]

If you really can't be bothered, I shall have to assume that you don't have an answer.

Part of the thread title is a clue, the rest is there for all to read.

 

[theclaud]

Part of the thread title is a clue, the rest is there for all to read.

Any chance of leaving the weird riddle stuff in the Cafe where it belongs?

 

[classic33]

Any chance of leaving the weird riddle stuff in the Cafe where it belongs?

Simple then.
Read what was posted. Its there in plain sight.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Oh well, suit yourself. If you have no interest in thinking about how these things work in anything other than black and white terms, then you probably have nothing to offer of any use anyway.

If you really can't be bothered, I shall have to assume that you don't have an answer.

ROFL, Put down the keyboard & walk away from the computer, there is just no way of having a proper discussion with you guys, you make me chuckle you does.

 

[Wobblers]

no they are not . look at any rigid chassis lorry. same design for a box on the back for parcels , or a tipper body . or as a container lorry. so there's no legs in that argument.

The standard lorry body plan then - which reduces costs, and maximises the load carrying capacity - which also reduces costs. Reducing costs is definitely to the construction industry's benefit.

and banksman is for one reason. stopping the lorry going down the hole, tipping over on the bank of earth etc . the people protection is a secondary role as much as we hate it that way.

If a lorry were to cause a fatal accident on site the result would be that the HSE close the site down and investigate with a view to prosecution. That has absolutely nothing to do with it?

as for the cost one on retractable guards , ok say they cost a grand each , and you have a fleet of 100 vehicles , fitting them overnight ( like some hint at here) is not only impossible physically but also financially . or should we just shut everything down ? thats reasonably practicable isn't it !

My apologies for so wilfully dismembering your post, but I've left this to last because it so perfectly illustrates my point (and theClaud's, and Adrian's, and Origamist's, and...) Your objections boil down to one thing, and one thing only: cost. You are saying that it is too expensive to fit even these most basic of safety measures. In other words, we should all have to put up with more dangerous roads just so your industry can enjoy marginally better profits.