Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
New look
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Times
May 5, 2008
Superlorry study ‘pressured’ to reverse advice
The authors of a government-commissioned study into 60-tonne superlorries have come under pressure to alter their findings to give ministers an excuse for rejecting road trials.
Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, has repeatedly broken commitments to publish the study, carried out by Heriot-Watt University and the Transport Research Laboratory. It was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) nine months ago.
The Times revealed last November that the study had found compelling evidence that extending the maximum permitted length for a lorry from 61ft to 83ft – 24ft longer than a bendy bus – would reduce carbon emissions and industry costs without compromising safety.
The Government promised in November to publish the study by the middle of February. The deadline was then put back to the end of February but that date was also missed. Two weeks ago Ms Kelly said that it “should be published before the summer recess”.
A source close to the study said part of the reason for the delay was that the DfT had been trying to persuade the authors to make their findings less positive. The source said that the authors had refused to allow their independence to be compromised. “You have to draw a line between accepting amendments to clarify arguments and changing the final conclusions and recommendations.”
The study found that longer, heavier lorries, known as LHVs, would reduce the overall number of articulated vehicles: two could do the job of three existing lorries.
While the weight carried would increase by only 30 per cent, the volume would rise by 60 per cent. This would particularly benefit companies that move light but bulky goods.
Rail freight companies have joined forces with rail unions to put intense pressure on the Government to reject LHVs without carrying out road trials.
Ms Kelly appears to be preparing to rule out trials on the ground that superlorries would do little to improve congestion.
She told the House of Commons last month: “I would need a huge amount of persuasion that superlorries are the answer to congestion on our roads.”
Long loads abroad
— Sweden and Finland have permitted LHVs since the 1960s
— The Netherlands approved them last year after finding that they slightly reduced road deaths by cutting lorry mileage
— They have been tested in some parts of Germany
— Denmark and Belgium are carrying out trials this year
I work in European road transport.
Currently our trucks are licenced to carry upto 44tonne, however we rarely get near this limit 'for the majority of loads carried'.
Volume of cargo is usually the limiting factor (ie: we run out of space before we reach the weight limit)
Scott Yule, Felixstowe,
Too dangerous re Blind spots (especially Left-hand Drive); Too big for anything other than Motoways; Too Heavy for the quality of road surfaces on Motorways (Anyone else getting stuck in the tramlines on the inside lane ?); Too many will be driving around empty. Are all these items in the report ?
Richard, Edenbridge,
Whether LHVs are economical depends on how the regulations are rigged. Make road tax for these monsters high enough and they lose their economic advantage.
Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth,
given the standard of usual left hand drive hgv's coming in to the uk fm abroad, anyone who agrees to permit even bigger trucks is effectively signing the death warrant of too many car drivers. the blind spot on these left hand drive trucks is just too big and murderous.
zugerman, zurich, switzerland
I wonder if your correspndents have actually seen these monstrosities?
Germany has tested them and rejected them.
For once let us face down the road haulage industry who promise every time that larger lorries will mean less of them.
They dont. It just means heavier lorries, many of them empty!
Michael Weinberg, Milton Keynes, Bucks
The answer is obvious. Gordon Brown can solve this problem just like all others - he just needs to set up a review as to why reviews are not giving the right answers!
John Scott, London,
We seem to have no problems with our B Doubles and Road Trains here. Yes, I know that there are roads in the UK that are not suitable for small lorries, let alone LHVs, but on the Motorways, maybe? As for Rail, containerization lends itself to roll-on/roll-off vis-a-vis road and rail transport.
Craig, Bell, Qld, Australia
If you have less lorries they will pay less VED and fuel tax. The fact that the roads would be less busy and there would be less pollution and greenhouse gases is but a minor detail.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Is this not the same government that is prepared to incarcerate people without evidence for 42 days on the basis that "they are protecting the country"? Why, for once, we cannot have the government that our own commitment to excellence deserves?
David Amerland, Cheadle, UK, Cheshire