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 
CM's comment
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
OUR technical editor says that because of lack of manoeuvrability, it is highly unlikely that any operator would want a 12-metre rather than an 11-metre rigid. Few operators go for the permitted maximum now.
And he believes the proposed limit of 12.5m on trailers is largely irrelevant as most business these days is based around the dimensions of the ISO container, which is 12.2m.
However, the proposed increase to 15.5m (overall length for artics) is important as it would remove the coupling problems that many operators have at the moment with certain tractive units (especially those with sleeper cabs). The extra 0.5m (about 19in) would not be noticed by the general public.
Overall height could be a problem. With the conventional ISO container and an "average" fifth-wheel height, some vehicle combinations could be in trouble, especially when unladen, as the springs are not compressed. The limit has been in force in several areas on the Continent, but because of low bridges and so on rather than for legislative reasons.
His comment on the turning-circles proposals relate back to those on overall lengths for rigids. would not like to be lumbered with driving a 12m-long eight-wheeler, for example," he said.