Weights lea oposes RHA
Page 4
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Road Haulage Association has been blown off the political fence over 40 tonne lorries, thanks to an internal document leaked to the same pressure group which revealed Department of Transport plans for a weights campaign in 1978.
The RHA has been publicly neutral about an increase to bring Britain into line with the rest of the EEC, even after the Freight Transport Association signalled its intention of campaigning for 40 tonnes earlier this year. That campaign has bee on ice while EEC transm ministers decide on drive weight limits across Eurc possibly at their Ltmemb( meeting next week — an' cuffed some hostility Eat RHA spokesmen who fea might be premature.
In January, the RHA that "it must be borne in that it (a weights increw would not be of benefit tt of our members", but it I discussed options with it members at local and indi group level.
Options to do nothing ( campaign immediately for creases to 40 or 44 tonm have been received less favourably than one to m a low profile until after th next general election, am then press for 40 tonnes.
The low profile has be uncovered by the leaking internal RHA report to T port 2000, the pro-rail en ronmental pressure grout which leaked the infamou 1978 Peeler memorandun The Guardian newspaper delayed DTp moves to in crease lorry weights then til 1983.
According to RHA dire general Freddie Plaskett, y will be reviewed after lext general election.
le he will not be drawn on matter, it is clear that the expects the present emment would raise the tilt limit within months of
laskett added that he finds worrying" that the docut was leaked to Transport ), but said: "We have noth:o apologise for." he RHA is opposed to a irate concession for 44 ton;, just for road/rail traffic, is against the compulsory of 6x4 tractive units for onne operation on the ands that they will be less or fuel efficient. ommenting on the docut in Transport Retort, its stetter, Transport 2000 asint director Jonathan erts says: "There is no reiition among RHA memthat the UK weight limit ild be related to the incaty of the infrastructure to ; with the resulting age.
[there is no proper considion of the possibility of iting different weight limits )articular circumstances lower weight limits in ntowns and cities, with raps higher weights on otways."
laskett responded by say"Of course we consider ronmental issues all the Obviously the use of iier lorries means there be fewer of them.
oing for smaller vehicles double the number on the is and add to the environtal difficulties."
askett added that it is "abte nonsense" to say that RIIA sees no relationship veen lorry weights and [damage. TA planning director lard Turner said the RHA, provider of transport, is iing its view, as a user, there are substantial ecoic benefits to be derived a weights increase.
TA figures show that the re to 38 tonnes has prod transport productivity improvements of 19% to 28%, with reductions in the number of vehicles used and the costs of running them.
Turner said a decision to opt for an 11 or 11.5 tonne drive axle limit, for which he says there are "compelling" safety reasons, would mean a marginal increase in road wear. "But we can mitigate some of that by using higher specification suspension systems or by paying more tax," he added.