Safer by lorry
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Janus (CM, April 9) splendidly supports the cause of the commercial goods vehicles and the drivers, and it is sad that it will be mostly read by the converted.
Given space I am sure the author could have drawn out other comparisons entirely favourable to the industry. The following is perhaps worthwhile emphasizing:—
Vehicles involved in injury accidents in 1969 Number of injury accidents per 100 million miles As in total the heavy goods vehicle comes out most favourably, it is a fair assumption that the sad incidence of fatal accidents is caused by the nature of the beast, which by the same token similarly swells the totals of those seriously injured and not so seriously injured.
Next, there is the Road Research Laboratory's recent references to accidents caused by cars running into the rear of goods vehicles. The two points taken together do emphasize the obvious, that a goods vehicle can be rather a dangerous beast, but more than emphasize that the standards of the drivers of these vehicles are far superior to those of any other class of road user. It is quite certain that whatever the number of accidents which could be attributed to hgv drivers may be, the number is far less than for other classes of drivers.
May I also suggest that there is a word to be said for the drivers of the small goods vehicles if one considers the type of work the majority of these vehicles do—getting into and away from kerbs in the busiest traffic areas day by day, visiting residential areas and private houses with all the hazards of pedestrians and children—one feels that the figures shown by no means support the often expressed view that these drivers are not of the best. Bearing in mind the low average age, could it be that the drivers of these vehicles are maligned?
R. E.G. BROWN, Controller, Technical Services, Freight Transport Association.