If there’s one thing no cyclists enjoys – it’s being overtaken by a lorry on a single carriageway. It’s quite intimidating when a huge lorry speeds past too close for comfort. However, if lorries are obeying the speed limit and give you plenty of room, it feels a lot better.
Yesterday, I found myself on the A420 quite a heavy traffic single carriageway; it was only for a mile, but I needed to turn right. The speed of lorries was critical for how difficult it was to turn right and get off the road.
I’m not impressed with the Department of Transport’s latest proposal to increase the speed limit for lorries on single carriageways on the seeming basis that:
- 70% already break the speed limit
- It’s unfair on those who stick to the speed limit. – The speeders gain an unfair competitive advantage
- Increasing speed limits will reduce costs of transport and improve economic growth.
- 40mph speed limit encourages unsafe ‘platooning’ and unsafe overtaking from other vehicles. (this comes from online survey)
It’s a strange kind of way to set laws – if people break it, the law must need changing.
The current speed limit on single carriageways for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes is 40 mph. Under the proposals, this could be increased to 45 mph or 50 mph.
Roads Minister Stephen Hammond said:
“The government is committed to doing everything it can to improve conditions for economic growth. We are consulting on increasing the single carriage way speed limit for certain HGVs after listening to industry experts who say that this will boost the UK economy and businesses of all sizes.
While this is likely to lead to more than £30 million a year in benefits for businesses through quicker journeys and reduced congestion, I want to make sure we have carefully considered the evidence of all of the effects on the economy, environment and – of course – road safety before we make a decision. I welcome views from all.”
If he welcomes all views, I say, why not try enforce 40mph speed limits for lorries. I’m not convinced on the argument about economic growth, but in this case quality of life is much more important that a slight cost saving. Personally, I’d tax lorries and susbidies rail freight transport to reflect the divergence in social costs. A 50mph speed limit may encourage even more lorries on single carriageways.
And, enforcing 20mph speed limits for lorries in urban areas would be another factor that plays a big role in improving quality of life. Especially for pedestrians and cyclists.
If you want to respond. D of T online survey
Write to us:
- lorryspeedlimit@dft.gsi.gov.uk
- post
- Vehicle Speed Limits,
3/23,
33 Horseferry Road,
London,
SW1P 4DR
In a bygone age speed liimits were set purely by measuring the speed of the traffic, on the grounds that citizens were generally responsible and would not drive dangerously. This is in fact still true, although the bar of ‘dangerously’ has now been set so low that virtually all of us infringe it.
The 40mph limit was a blatant attempt to use lorries as mobile roadblocks. It merely enrages the drivers behind leading to some appalling overtaking moves and maybe even road rage. Repealing it will make everybody more comfortable, and less stress will lead to better driving. Also a 50mph truck will give a bigger pull as it goes by!
Economic growth is everything at the moment, and a lot of other objectives are being swept aside.
The thing about this sort of thing is that it is how most transport investment is justified. Basically adding up lots of small time savings for individuals and then multiplying that over typically 60 years.
Its also much easier to model such time savings than any likely increase in danger or perception of danger.
Yes, I must admit, I missed out questions 3-38. I thought the first one – do you think it should be 40 or 50mph enough.
It started to annoy me, when they gave leading questions like: Do you think risk of accidents from people overtaking slow moving lorries means speed limit should be increased?
I would have said ‘No’ to that because of course everyone would pass only when it is safe to do so (ahem) and not take risks that would be reduced by lorries going faster, so reducing the need to pass. Or something like that.
Some of it required reading extensive surveys about noise levels and pollutant levels – very tedious! Other parts were aimed at specific audiences like loca authorities. They asked your opinion on lots of things but always asked you to ‘explain your answer and provide any evidence you may have’ which is a bit tough as an interested but non-professional individual!
Jings!
That online survey took nearly an hour to fill in properly