Increased exposure to road accidents

The government is considering trials of a new 'super-lorry'. But nothing could be more disastrous

A "gigaliner", as they call it, on trial in Germany. Photograph: Allianz pro Schiene/Kraufmann

The general public has a right to know that the UK government and the European Commission are considering whether to allow mega-trucks, on our roads. The favoured longer, heavier lorry (LHV) shown in the photo weighs 60 tonnes and is 25m long, which is 50% longer and over a third heavier than existing 44-tonne lorries.

Freight on Rail believes that longer heavier lorries (LHV) would mean more lorries, more pollution and more exposure to road accidents and would be opposed by the general public. Previous increases in lorry dimensions have lead to an increase in HGVs driving around less full, as this MTRU report (pdf) found, which is the absolute reverse of what was claimed would happen by the road haulage industry.

Not only does this evidence undermine the government's justification for permitting previous increased lorry dimensions but it also questions the validity of current arguments for LHVs. The claimed environmental benefits rely on very high levels of load utilisation - in excess of that routinely achieved within the haulage sector. German LHV trials showed that utilisation of above 77% for LHVs was needed for fuel costs to breakeven whereas load utilisation was 72.6% in the UK in 2005.Heavier lorries use more fuel and so the lack of any efficiency improvements would mean more CO2 emissions.

At a time when the government is committed to reducing carbon emissions, it seems perverse to allow trials of vehicles that will severely undermine rail freight and force trainloads of freight back onto the roads - when rail freight has a much better environmental record than road haulage (emitting five times less CO2 per tonne mile than road haulage). As energy efficiency is directly related to carbon dioxide emissions, rail is significantly more energy-efficient than road.

Longer heavier lorries will have minimal impact on road congestion whereas an average freight train which is designed for heavy and bulky cargoes, can remove 50 HGVs from our roads.

We question why the government is considering allowing trials of longer and heavier lorries when there is poor compliance with existing road regulations on speed limits, drivers hours and weight, all of which put the public at extra risk. LHVs have safety dangers due to their size and lack of manoeuvrability. DfT research found that HGVs were twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents as cars. Bendy buses, which are 18 metres long, cause more than twice as many injuries as any other bus, according to official figures.

Other questions remain concerning LHVs' braking distance, ability to overtake, drivers' blind spots, jack-knifing, and ability to reverse the LHV with its trailer. Where would drivers stop to have their statutory rest periods?

Restricting LHVs to dual carriageways and motorways simply will not work, as there is no mechanism to keep them to this. The reality is that these vehicles will need local access to distribution hubs, which are usually off the motorway network. Unlike other European countries, the UK allows all vehicles to operate on any road and at any time unless specifically prohibited from doing so, and even then it normally allows access. As a result, we will get these very large vehicles travelling down local roads that are wholly unsuitable for the purpose, with consequent intrusion, noise and road damage and safety implications.

These leviathans do not even deliver on their own "green" prospectus, and will do actual harm in so many other ways. It shouldn't take a trial to tell us they are bad news.

Source - Guardian Unlimited

To contact one of our specialist lawyers please call 0800 61 66 81, or use the contact details at the top left of this page.