Not so fast
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MILD almost to the point of blandness the Ministry of Transport's green paper How Fast? is nevertheless liable to provoke an angry reaction from any road transport operator who reads it. This has its amusing side when it is realized that the authors of the pamphlet appear to regard their task as the civilizing one of pacification or at any rate of reassurance and are obviously hardly conscious of causing offence.
The paper presents a number of proposals for discussion and as "the material for a full public debate" rather than a statement of Government policy. The difficulty the reader finds is in accepting that a Government department can really throw ideas impartially into the arena without the underlying intention that one day those ideas will be translated into legislation.
Practically all the proposals are either for keeping existing speed limits or raising them. The one notable exception suggests that heavy goods vehicles should be restricted to a speed limit of 60 mph on motorways. Faced with this discriminatory treatment the operator would expect to be given a more than satisfactory explanation. Instead of this he finds himself the subject of what seems a deliberate attack.
Braking distances
Longer braking distances for commercial vehicles and in many cases the unsuitability of their tyres for sustained high speeds are noted in the paper. Another relevant factor is said to be the standard of maintenance of heavy goods vehicles "which in the past has been poor".
This should steadily improve, the paper continues on a more cheerful note, "with the advent of the heavy goods vehicle testing scheme and the quality licensing system provided in the Transport Bill". There are other improvements to be looked for as the years go by. The minimum braking standards now required of all new vehicles will be obligatory for all vehicles irrespective of age in 1973. The special braking and stability problems of some articulated vehicles are still to be solved. The benefit is also still to come of the heavy goods vehicle driving test.
What the operator may easily read this as meaning is that he is at present in a state of disgrace and must serve his penance for a certain period until the Ministry of Transport in its benevolence and wisdom purges his iniquity with some salutary restrictions. The suspicion is increased when the paper goes on to suggest that after all the trouble and expense involved in imposing the new speed limit it should be only a short-time measure subject to review "as other safety measures affecting heavy goods vehicles come into effect".
Worse still—again for the amour propre of the operator—is that the paper goes to great lengths to present the case against the proposal. Motorways were designed and built for fast-moving traffic, it says.
Speed restrictions on some types of vehicle might discourage improvements in their design for safe long-distance travel at high speeds and "reduce the attraction of motorways for economically important classes of traffic". Drivers might prefer to use the all-purpose roads which are more crowded and dangerous and where they would cause more congestion. This may be taken to mean in brief that only the bad record of the operator forces the Government to propose the new restriction.
Nothing is said on the point which should really matter. No evidence is given that heavy goods vehicles cause more accidents because they are entitled to travel at 70 mph on motorways nor that there would be a reduction in the number of accidents if the limit were reduced to 60 mph.
On the other hand there is some criticism of light vans on this point. Their accident involvement rate, says the paper, is consistently higher than that of private cars and is no better than it was in 1960, "while those of other goods vehicles and cars have slowly improved". In spite of this the proposal is to raise the speed limit on light vans from 40 mph to 50 mph on all-purpose roads and to keep it at 70 mph on motorways.
Parliamentary critics
Operators of heavy goods vehicles may find themselves objecting not so much to the actual proposal made in the paper as to the fact that it was made at all. Parliamentary critics of a Government department will sometimes put down a resolution to reduce the appropriation of that department by a negligible amount. The intention is to embarrass the Minister concerned verbally rather than financially. In the same way the paper might almost have been written to expose the operator to public scorn rather than to make any appreciable change in the activities of his vehicles.
The difference between 70 mph and 60 mph is not great. In fact the paper makes the point that it should be kept small so that lorry drivers would not be tempted to turn off on other roads. Enforcement of two limits so close together can hardly be easy. One would have thought that the relatively few police patrolling a motorway would concentrate on the grossly over-speeding vehicle (almost invariably a private car) rather than the lorry travelling just over the permitted limit.
In any case not every lorry is capable of doing this. The older vehicles that the paper criticizes tend also to be the slowest. There is a reference to the fact that "practically all diesel engines are currently fitted with engine governors". They are fitted to protect the engine from damage caused from overspeeding, the paper points out, rather than to control the maximum speed. It would be surprising all the same if most governors made speeds of over 60 mph possible.
The exceptions might be those lorries, still comparatively few, which are expressly built for high speeds on motorways. These vehicles would presumably escape most of the strictures in the paper and yet it is the operators of just those vehicles who are likely to be affected if the proposed reduction were put into force.
The reference to quality licensing in the paper will inevitably remind operators of quantity licensing also embodied in the Transport Bill. Reduction of the speed limit for a limited period might seem nicely calculated to slow down long-distance operators until the time when the refusal of special authorizations puts a stop to their activities completely.
Generally speaking, however, operators are not anxious that the vehicles should travel at reckless speeds on motorways or elsewhere. An average speed of something less than 50 mph is considered adequate. This strikes the right balance between covering the ground quickly and preserving the vehicle in good running order.
Third lane prohibition
Prohibition in three-lane motorways of the use of the third lane by heavy goods vehicles was supported by operators through their associations. It should in itself curb the practicable speeds of lorries and it is for this reason that operators gave it their approval.
Surprising as it may seem to the general public, the road transport industry may also be found agreeing with the proposal for a 60 mphslirnit. If this is the case the reasons for the decision should be emphasized and as they are likely to be different from those in the paper the distinction should be made equally clear.
On speed limits in general the paper has some sensible and realistic comments. Despite their many advantages, it says, the limits are continually in danger of being disregarded. This is partly because they impose a restraint on many people; partly because they are so easy to break; partly because some of them are "poorly related" to conditions on the road; and partly because they are difficult to enforce. The Government has always held the view, the paper continues, that the reason for the limits must be understood and that they must seem "a reasonable and acceptable restriction to most road users".
The basis of the complaints from operators ought to be that in the particular proposal for heavy goods vehicles the Government is running counter to its own policy. Far from being understood and accepted the reasons set out in the paper seem almost designed to be resented by that section of the public to whom the speed limit will apply.