We must suppress this appetite for LHVs
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
STAN ROBINSON'S LEITER (CM 17 June) demonstrates that we are now being asked to consider 30m, 80-tonne LHVs. This poses the question of when this insatiable appetite for ever-larger, heavier, lorries will end?
Fuller scrutiny of the Dutch government's LHV trials report (CM 24 June) shows the trial of 429 registered LHVs is small and represents only 03% of the Netherlands' I IGV fleet.
Only 148 of the 1,000 car drivers interviewed had any involvement with LHVs, casting doubt on the veracity of the survey. LHV drivers do, however, state that LHVs are more challenging, more prone to sideways motions and that threats of overturning are more difficult to correct than regular trucks. The UK freight industry has always demanded that trucks of all sizes should be allowed to go anywhere and has resisted prohibitions (eg the London lorry control scheme) so a "permitted network" would represent a complete change with a new enforcement regime.
The Danish LHV trial experience, with an increasing number of extensions demanded to their permitted network, shows that it may he impractical. Additionally, lack of compliance of existing road regulations needs to be considered when evaluating LHVs.
The so-called gains of LHVs in terms of vehicle tonne mileage in the report appear to be based on full-load factors, which is not realistic and distorts the arguments in favour of LHVs.
Saying road and rail do not compete and that the markets are different is wrong; it is easy to state that Dutch domestic intermodal rail services have not been affected because the market there is so small.
Philippa Edmunds Freight on Rail manager