1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Overtaking ban opposed by FTA
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A proposal to ban overtaking by heavy vehicles on certain sections of M5 has been rejected by the Freight Transport Association as being unnecessary and impractical. The Association has told the Department of the Environment that the slight speed reduction caused to traffic in the outside. lane when heavy lorries are overtaking is minimal compared with the disruption of traffic flow that an overtaking ban would cause. In the long term a third lane should be provided. Short-term alleviation could be obtained by using the hard shoulder as a "crawler lane".
The restriction of lorries to the slow lane would limit the lane speed to that of the slowest vehicle, and would have a seriow affect on traffic flow. At times traffic coulc be brought to a virtual standstill by a continuous line of heavy vehicles in the slow lane. This in turn would cause difficulty al access points for all traffic. It could alsc lead to heavy lorry drivers by-passing the motorway on adjoining "all-purpose" roads.
For its part, the Association intends tc further remind drivers of the need to be fully aware of the problems that can arise if they endeavour to overtake under adverse conditions.