AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

CM answers back to the DOT

9th January 1997, Page 12
9th January 1997
Page 12
Page 12, 9th January 1997 — CM answers back to the DOT
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Truck, Axle, Lorry

CM is one of the consultees chosen by the Department of Transport to reply to its proposals for increased lorry weights. Here's a taste of what we've said to Marsham Street...

by Brian Weatherley

• The DOT is considering raising the maximum weight for trucks engaged in general haulage to 40 or even 44 tonnes (see panel and CM 19 Dec-1 Jan). This may be the last chance it gets for a long time: the forthcoming general election could scupper any potentially controversial legislation.

CM is one of the consultees chosen by Marsham Street. But rather than go over the same ground as the trade associations or vehicle manufacturers we've majored on five key issues. Much of what we've submitted is based on feedback from readers. Here's a taste of what we said.

Timescale

Commercial Motor is fre

quently contacted by operators of top-weight vehicles seeking advice on vehicle replacement. They all ask: 'Are we going to get higher weights?'

With no firm commitment from the DOT beyond the adoption of 40 tonnes in 1999 (when the UK allows 40 tonnes on five axles for international operations) it is extremely difficult to help them in their purchasing decisions.

Anyone planning to buy a tractor in 1997 needs to know

about any planned changes in weight limits before committing themselves to a final specification, not least as there are cost implications for higher gross weights.

But without any indication on VED rates or which configuration the DOT may support, operators can either put off a much-needed replacement programme or gamble on a vehicle specification that may not be suited to higher weights.

Whatever upper limit is decided on the DOT must publish a clear timetable for any changes as soon as possible, even if those changes are not to be implemented for some years. Unnecessary delays will cost the industry dear.

Safety implications

In its consultation document the DOT highlights brake performance standards for heavier lorries. Given that many of the top-weight vehicles operated at 38 tonnes in the UK run at higher gross weights in other EU countries—and have EU type approval for their braking systems—this should not be seen, or promoted, as an obstacle. Braking systems for HGVs are becoming increasingly effective thanks to the development of electronically activated braking systems (EBS). Application times are decreasing and braking balance on artics and drawbar rigs is getting better, improving the overall safety of HGVs. The DOT should actively support EBS, promoting its full type approval through Brussels at the earliest opportunity.

If the DOT wishes to improve brake performance beyond that already provided by existing primary systems it should also offer incentives to operators to invest in secondary retarders— either through the adoption of concessionary "weight allowances" as provided by the French Government, or via a reduction in VED.

Taxation incentives

The Treasury already operates a sliding scale of annual VED rates for top-weight vehicles: the more road-friendly the configuration the lower the VEDnot least at 94 tonnes.

Given that a six-axle 40/44tonner would create no more road wear than most five-axle 38-tonners (and considerably less wear than the 40-tonne, five-axle vehicles due on 1 January 1999) it would be illogical to discourage the purchase of heavier six-axle vehicles by raising VED levels in line with any increase in general haulage weight limits.

Future strategy

If the Government wants to achieve a more balanced freight transport system in this country it has to provide more attractive, and better publicised, financial incentives to truck operators to consider including rail within a freight movement.

It must also recognise that one of the reasons why roadfreight rates are so attractive is the presence of illegal HGV operators who depress rates through their activities. Until the DOT tackles this, alternatives will continue to be priced out of the market.

Equally, increasing the scope for 44-tonne lorries carrying containers to and from ports may well tempt unscrupulous hauliers to carry heavy contain ers on illegal, "road-only" domestic journeys, putting their competitors running at the legal 38-tonne limit at an unfair disadvantage.

Deciding now

Allowing 40 tonnes on six axles as soon as regulations allow" would undoubtedly reduce road wear without excessively penalising productivity, but such an increase is only a short-term compromise and should be the very least offered to general hauliers. If the DOT does stop at 40 tonnes for general haulage then it must publish a timescale for increasing it to 44 tonnes, in line with combined transport, at the earliest opportunity.

If the Government is serious about reducing the impact of HGVs then it should follow the arguments in the DOT's own consultation document by allowing 44 tonnes on six axles for general haulage no later than 1 January 1999.

There's still time to have your say! • Copies of the consultation document are available from the DOT on 0171 271 4524 Operators have until 14 February to write to the DOT with their views at Zone 2/11 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1 4DR.

44 tonnes: What's on the table?

• To allow, as soon as regulations can be brought into force, six-axle trucks to operate at 44 tonnes when used on piggyback road/rail operations AND at 40 tonnes generally.

To allow six-axle 44tonners on general

haulage from a date no earlier than 1 January 1999 and possibly as late as 2001.

• The DOT is also seeking views on the possibility of allowing 44-formers to carry containers to and from sea ports provided it can be done without any increase in total lorry miles.


comments powered by Disqus