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 
. rry vital link in I stribution chain
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RRY is an irreplaceable link in the distribution chain should be developed and given the roads it requires says reight Transport Association in its evidence to the ge inquiry published this week.
ncludes that the growth freight transport is in !neil-al not self-generating it t is a response to the ng public need for goods id rvices.
Lo es are essential to the !mand for goods and thereire o the standard of living of ost of the country and they av made a major contribuon o the regional policy and nplbyment of the UK, says te FTA.
And the FTA holds that enironmental problems conected with heavy lorries need ) be seen in perspective and ot in isolation. They should e seen in conjunction with le economic and energy prolems that are also affecting le Country.
Bit it also points out that he solutions to the environletital problems are not .ecessarily to be found in ranshipment, smaller 'ehicles, or railways. The way orWard could lay in technical mprovements in heavy rehicles, enlightened traffic nanagement, and more iypasses and ring roads.
FTA comments that heavier It lorries would lead to more benefits in the field of energy and the environment, but it also warns that the price of energy is not likely to have much effect on the demand for transport.
FTA thinks that the lorry poses three questions to the man in the street. Can more freight go by rail? If it goes by road must it go down my street and if it does go down my street must the lorry be so big?
But the questions are answered by the evidence that states that heavier lorries do not necessarily mean bigger lorries and the heavier lorry has a potential for substantial fuel savings when properly designed.
Heavier vehicles would pave the way for a maze of technical improvements including reductions in noise and road damage.
And the heavier vehicles need not mean that competition between road and rail need be affected because both modes have their own clearly defined markets.
There are no grounds for the impression that the heavier vehicles will not be as safe as the existing weight vehicle. FTA says that the opposite is true and they could be safer.
FTA comes out in favour of Britain making a unilateral declaration on weights in the same way that Italy did in 1976. This declaration should be in favour of a 40-tonne five-axle limit with the retention of the 10-ton axle limit.
The EEC involvement will only confuse the issue even further, says the FTA. Other European conventions will add to the confusion; a declaration would allow further discussion at a later date.