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 
REAC
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I GT E LI Ii
f you normally run your 7.5-tonner on a busy motorway, get used to putting on the handbrake and switching off the engine. That seems to be the industry's expectation following the latest EC proposals for extending speed limiter regulations to vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.
The EC's principle motive, according to the consultation paper put out by the Department of Transport, is to reduce road accidents. The move is welcomed by green pressure group Transport 2000 "These proposals are a step in the right direction. Each year 3,400 people are killed on our roads. Speed is an important factor in a third of fatal crashes and HGVs are responsible for a fifth of all road deaths. Slowing down more vehicles will lead to safer roads," insists Transport 2000's Steve Hounsham.
However, the first flaws in this argument are evident from the DoT's own covering letter to those it consulted: "In the UK, we do not have clear evidence to show how many accidents have been prevented by fitting topspeed limiters to the heavier vehicles."
Consultation
Let's be clear about the reasons for the industry's main objections. In its submission to the consultation process, Mercedes-Benz stated that the principle of limiting is not the issue: "The concept of speed limitation is, in our view, wholly correct and should bring real benefits in terms of lower accident rates and reduced emissions. However, we do have concerns with regard to the reduced productivity of the HGV vehicle parc, the increased costs that accrue from this and the issue of congestion." The Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association both argue that because these speed limiters only influence vehicles on major roads, they will not affect urban accident rates at all and this makes the EC argument for increased road safety spurious: "It is a fact that 91% of all road accidents in the UK occur at speeds under 6omph," says Geoff Day, the FTA's manager of engineering policy. "By definition they cannot be affected by this legislation. From the government's own figures, only 9% of accidents can be affected and nobody can say how many commercial vehicles were involved or how they were involved in any of those."
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents also doubts the effect of these measures on accident rates. In its submission to the DoT, RoSPA said: "Despite the existing requirement for top-speed limiters on the heaviest vehicles, over 8o% of HGVs and 50% of coaches and buses exceed the speed limits on dual carriageways. On single carriageways, well over 6o% of HG Vs and 23% of buses and coaches exceed the limits. Therefore, while RoSPA would support the measures proposed, we do not believe that they will have any significant effect on casualty reduction."
Differentiation
The EC proposals would limit all goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes to a maximum speed of 56mph. The fear is that with no differentiation between the weights, the speed limit is likely to produce an unbroken line of commercial vehicles in the first two lanes on all motorways—lines that would slow dramatically whenever the gradient increases. While there is nothing in the proposals to ban lighter goods vehicles from the outside lane, operators believe that with a limiter installed such a manoeuvre could become hazardous.
"There's no way you could use the outside lane of a motorway if you were limited to 56mph. Imagine the problems you'd have in Germany with a car coming up behind you at 'oomph," says Mark Quelch, who runs European Transport in Royston. He has 13 vehicles involved in UK and international work, eight of which are 7.5-tonners. He believes the moves would destroy the advantages of running at 7.5 tonnes.
"It will give us no end of problems because it will increase the time it takes to do the job. At 70mph, it normally takes us about seven and a half hours to get to Edinburgh, with stops. That's over a day's work. Take the speed limit down to 65mph, no problem. At 56mph, forget it. We won't be able to get away from the artics. We won't be able to do those 'flying jobs' any more. There won't be any 7.5-tonne work in the UK or in Europe."
At Pauline Edwards Transport in Leicestershire, there are concerns about the implications for the price of the job. In addition to its own 7.5-tonners, PET uses several owner-drivers to meet its delivery schedules. "It will affect them badly," says managing director Pauline Edwards. "It will put the cost up at the end of the day. We could use more small vans, but you are looking at twice the cost to the customer and an increase in fuel consumption."
However, if these proposals are introduced in full, Mercedes-Benz says it would not expect a massive switch by operators from 7.5 tonnes to below the 3.5-tonne level in a bid to beat the limiters.
"If you draw a graph of where the volumes are, there is a massive spike at 3,500kg," says John Baker, Mercedes-Benz director, truck sales marketing. "You would have to be pretty close to the 3.5-tonne weight level to make a step down worth your investment. The next big spike is at 7,5ookg—the biggest group affected by these proposals. Not only would the investment for them be enormous, but also all their systems will be based on 7.5 tonnes. I think it would be too far a fall to make it worth their while."
The associations are also concerned about proposals for retrofitting speed limiters; they argue that this course is wholly unacceptable. However, the ETA says it would not object to a 56mph top speed limiter for new vehicles over 7.5 tonnes: "It would reduce their top speed by 4mph at no cost to the operator," says Day. Speed limiter suppliers are not exactly leaping up and down at the prospect of a retrofit bonanza. Dino Mercurio is managing director of equipment supplier Groeneveld, which already supplies light vehicle speed limiters to operators who install them voluntarily.
He says: "Most of the programme could be accommodated by software changes within engine management systems because the vast majority of newer vehicles have electronic throttles. In general, vans have a shorter operational life than trucks. If the average life is five years and you limit them from new, within three years, you will have most of them limited anyway. What the EC must decide is how far back they want to go."
Possibility
So, while no one seems to be arguing against the principle of speed limiters, there seems to be little evidence that these EC proposals will do any good. It is possible that operators at the lower end of the affected weight limits might switch to using several light CVs to beat the speed restriction.
This would erode the benefits of reduced emissions and would add to congestion, which most seem to believe would be the inevitable result. Or would it?
According to Dr Will Murray at the Transport and Logistics Research Unit of the University of Huddersfield, it ain't necessarily so. Not according to congestion theory anyway: "The theory suggests that if everyone drove at the same speed there would be less congestion. It is when traffic changes speed that there is a problem," he says. Now there s a subject for consultation...