AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

BIGGER IS BETTER

11th August 1988
Page 3
Page 3, 11th August 1988 — BIGGER IS BETTER
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• No-one in his right mind thinks that the top sleeper cab is a good idea when the alternative is a conventional full width sleeper. Ask any driver who has wriggled into the cocoon-like sleeper pod for the night how quickly he could get out in the event of a fire. Ask any motorway police attending a motorway pile-up how good the structural strength of a hopelessly narrow top sleeper cab is when 38 tonnes hits 38 tonnes at full tilt.

Unions, employers, drivers and politicians all agree that reducing the depth of a truck cab in order to achieve even more payload is dangerous and it has got to be stopped. Many top sleeper cabs do not have the integral strength, interior space or cross-cab access necessary to make them a safe working environment in the event of a crash or during a fire.

It seems odd then that the Department of Transport should oppose European Commission plans to set a new community-wide standard for artic lengths which would remove the need for top sleeper cabs. We are a safety-conscious nation, aren't we? We believe in harmonisation and liberalisation in the EEC by 1992, don't we? We lead the world in free market economics, provided everyone sticks to the same set of ground rules, surely?

Apparently not. The Road Haulage Association is quite right to be dismayed with the current Dip approach to top sleeper cabs. Why, for once, cannot Britain fall into line with the rest of the European road transport industry and accept bigger artics, particularly when the reason is to improve driver safety — not profit?

Many European transport operators are beginning to ask how outwardlooking our hauliers really are, and whether our Government has to be the odd man out every time a new standard is suggested, whether it is 40 tonnes or 16.5 metre artics.

The end result is surely going to be horrific. 1992 should be the beginning of the end of unnecessary red tape in Europe and the opening up of a land of opportunity, but how will British hauliers fare with so many domestic "derogations" to hamper their every move? At this absurd rate, we are never going to compete on equal terms.

The European Commission proposals for a 16.5m overall artic length and 12m between the kingpin and the rear of the trailer are generous, so why do we have to be mean?

No-one in his right mind thinks that meaness is a good idea especially when it comes to driver safety — or do they?


comments powered by Disqus