Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Truckers put foot down on speed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 September 2007
HAULIERS want to see the speed limit raised on some key routes and compensation paid for the foot and mouth outbreak.
The Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association will meet Scottish transport minister Stewart Stevenson this week for showdown talks over a number of issues, including a proposed new Forth crossing.

The trucking industry is keen to see the speed limit for lorries on "good quality" single carriageway roads - including most of the A9 - raised from 40mph to 50mph.

Gavin Scott, head of policy at the Freight Transport Association, said the limit put places such as Inverness at a disadvantage compared to English cities which are linked by motorways or dual carriageways with higher speed limits.

He said: "These speed limits were determined before radial tyres, anti-lock braking or power steering were common. It seems stupid that such restrictions should be in place on a good road like the A9."

But a move to raise the speed limit is likely to anger the Green Party, which has an agreement with the SNP under which its MSPs voted for Alex Salmond to become first minister and who support his ministerial appointments. Green policy is to reduce the number and size of lorries on Scotland's roads, and the party has called for speed limits to be reduced. Green MSP Patrick Harvie is convener of the Parliament's climate change, transport and infrastructure committee.

The RHA wants the Executive to compensate its members for money lost during this year's foot and mouth disease crisis, when many lorries were forced to stand idle.

Phil Flanders, the association's Scotland director, said: "We will be presenting the hauliers' plight. The last time there was an epidemic, everyone else who was affected got compensated except the hauliers. If the government can't help, maybe we will have to sue Pirbright [the laboratory near where the outbreak originated]."

But an Executive spokesman said there would be no compensation for the effects of the outbreak: "We recognise that recent restrictions imposed on animal movements have caused difficulties for hauliers. However, consequential losses cannot be compensated."

Both haulage groups insist the Executive should build a bridge rather than dig a tunnel for the new Forth crossing, an option preferred by some residents and environmental campaigners.

Tunnels are unsuitable for many types of cargo, including whisky and dangerous chemicals, so a large proportion of lorries using the Forth Road Bridge now have to make a 30-mile detour through Kincardine if a tunnel was chosen.

The FTA's Scott said: "It does seem rather perverse to consider a crossing which would have such restrictions on the loads it could carry. People say that high winds on a bridge can also prevent lorries from using it, but that has not happened with the new Severn crossing in a location with stronger winds than the Forth."

The Executive will decide on the type of crossing in autumn. A Transport Scotland agency report recommended a cable-stayed bridge, just to the west of the existing road bridge, which would cost an estimated £2.5bn.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Agent 99,

02/09/2007 08:44:47

You've got to laugh at the RHA and FTA; just who are they kidding?

Drive round any, and I mean any, part of Scotland and you will be challenged to find truckers who rigourously adhere to this largely undocumented speed limit. You could be forgiven for concluding that the drivers themselves are totally unaware of it. I lose count of the number of times I'm passed by 40t trucks hitting over 70mph, and I'm not driving a milk float.

Although there should be widespread support for the notion of consulation on the best transport infrastructure to provide, the article seems to give the impression that the RHA are dictating to the Government [...showdown talks over a number of issues...] and will go and play elsewhere if they don't get their way.

If this journalistic excess is any reflection of reality, perhaps the RHA and FTA will sign up to a realistic and credible means of paying for the damage their vehicles cause to both the roads and the wider environment. Fat chance.

2

David C,

02/09/2007 10:25:15

It is my understanding that certain hazardous loads may have to be escorted through a tunnel, if that is the chosen option, but not necessarily banned. This happens at the Tyne Tunnel, with a minimal delay for an escort vehicle. The way European legislation is going, it can only be a matter of time before safety issues regarding lorries with hazardous loads on bridges such as the Forth, or Humber, or any other suspension bridge come under scrutiny. One could only imagine the damage caused by say, a petrol tanker with 30,000l of fuel, going on fire on the Forth Bridge. The heat damage to the steel structure of the Bridge could be enormous, and take weeks, or even months, to repair.

3

walter gibralter,

02/09/2007 14:45:12

most modern trucks run more economically at speeds
of 45-50 mph than down gear at 40 mph,
i doubt if trucks reach speeds of 70mph as they are
fitted with a speed limiter at 56mph,
car speedo`s are inaccurate.

4

sickpuppy,

embra 02/09/2007 15:19:37

they can and do i have also been overtaken by trucks.doesnt take much to fiddle with the speed limiter.same can can be done with coaches

5

Russell M,

Stirling, Scotland 02/09/2007 21:42:24

Are we interested in road safety and efficiency or which political action group has more power?

According to basic laws of physics objects in motion have the lowest risk of collision when they are travelling in the same direction at the SAME speed.

Multi tiered speed limits insure a constant churning of vehicles on motorways and an increased propensity for faster vehicles to pass on single carriageways.

There is not one motorway in Scotland complete to design and the upgrade of many A roads has been piecemeal exacerbating accident black spots all over the country. To call our road network a system implies a coherency which has no reality.

The Greens, Dr Beeching and the MOT have a lot to answer for.

6

snoozyowl,

Wales 02/09/2007 22:47:09

WE might as well be honest and admit that no truck driver takes any notice whatever of the 40mph limit and no policeman, well - actually there aren't any here so that's irrelevant.

Let's just have one speed limit for trucks on all main roads. Or perhaps someone would like to enforce the 40mph limit on non-dual carriageways? No? I thought not.

7

Ronnie,

dalkeith 03/09/2007 03:21:21

i agree with the hauliers. speed limits in the uk were set in the early seventies as a means to conserve fuel during the middle east conflict and have very little to do with road safety. the technology has advanced since then with braking systems and tyre designs but still these speeds limits have not been reviewed. and yes the same applies to today's cars where they have advanced in terms of roadholding and brakes. so why do we continue with a 60/70mph speed limit when clearly it is out of date that no one really obeys?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.