Should HGVs speed limits be upgraded?

[rov1100]

Any regular user of the roads knows that its not usually the speed that kills but the disparity between the slowest vehicle on that road combined with the fastest. If cars are allowed to do 80 and HGVs remained the same this gap will increase.

Also its the container traffic that would benefit from a higher speed limit as the driver is confined to a set number of driving hours.

Therefore if we want to improve efficiency should HGVs have their max speed adjusted?

http://www.theanswerb...uestion1061925-2.html

[ABerrant]

"The limit is 60mph in the UK"

The UK limit (based on type of road) is 70mph for some HGVs (e.g. 7.5t and lower) and 60mph for other HGVs (e.g. greater than 7.5t).

"The EU say speed limiters have to be set to 90kph (a tad under 56mph)"

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended) makes it an offence to use on a road most HGVs (3.5t and above) registered since Oct 2001 unless fitted with a limiter set at 90kph.

[New Judge]

Quite, AB.

So an offence may be committed for not fitting or properly calibrating a speed limiting device. But an offence of speeding (between 56 and 60mph) could not be successful.

[ABerrant]

Not arguing about prosecutions. The point is that the road limit could be raised to 100mph but the vehicles (most) would still be physically limited to 90kph. Brilliant!

[New Judge]

Or, to put it another way, an EU directive makes it an offence to operate an HGV without physically limiting it to 56mph, whilst UK law allows the same vehicle to travel at 60mph (on a motorway).

Another example of EU legislation "trumping" that determined by the UK Parliament.

[ABerrant]

No, an EU directive which was passed into UK law in 2005, RV(C&U)R, makes it an offence to operate an HGV etc. etc.

[ABerrant]

http://metricviews.or...ete-hgv-speed-limits/

[New Judge]

So there is a contradiction in UK law then, AB.

Leaving aside the fact that the UK law would almost certainly not have had incorporated into it the 56mph limiting matter had we been left to our own devices (for why on earth should it?) UK legislators have now enacted speed limit legislation allowing HGVs to travel at 60mph, but have also enacted speed limiting legislation to physically limit those same vehicles to 56mph. Seems logical !!!

To see further how EU law has trumped UK law, it is useful to note that when the speed limiter legislation was first introduced the UK was granted temporary dispensation to allow limiting to 60mph. However, this could not be allowed to prevail and the temporary dispensation was removed so our HGVs are now limited to 90kmh – a limit which has no relevance to UK speed limits at all !!!

The article you cite merely confirms this. The DfT is accused of intransigence in refusing to align the national speed limit for HGVs with that of the speed limiter legislation. But why should it? Road distances and speed limits in the UK are expressed (by statute) in Miles and mph. Why should our statutory requirements be changed to align with EU requirements?

[ABerrant]

NJ - Statutory requirements informing road speed limits or statutory requirements informing use of vehicles? This is hardly the first instance of a UK law existing in conjunction with another UK law which appears to step on its toes. We know the maximum speed limits for a motorway, but place a 50mph sign and those limits no longer apply. Is that a contradiction or a countermand?

A car could pass an MOT and still be mechanically dangerous (per C&U regs) - not really a contradiction in law but two sets of overlapping rules.

HGV drivers are more than mere drivers; they are deemed professional drivers. These professional drivers have more to consider than police enforcement of traffic laws. VOSA and Traffic Commissioners place more onerous conditions on the licences they issue (vocational and operator) in regard of the use of vehicles and have powers to sanction when infractions occur.

• A nominally speed limited HGV travelling in excess of 68mph (allowing for ACPO guidelines) MAY (for example) earn the driver 3 points and an FPN. Repeat offence: 3 points & court fine.

• The same HGV travelling at 58mph MAY earn the (professional) driver and operator a VOSA warning & driver an employment disciplinary. Repeat infraction: operator a fine and/or licence sanction; driver a vocational licence suspension and/or unemployment from further disciplinary.

If operators/drivers do not wish to abide by the more onerous licence conditions implicit when operating speed restricted HGVs they can operate/drive older or specific types of vehicles which fall outside the scope of limiter regulation. VOSA (and DfT intransigence) still allows such non-limited vehicles to travel at 60mph (or 70mph if applicable).

So not really a contradiction in law but rather separate rules for different types of vehicle.

[youngmafbog]

Answer is simple. Pull out of Europe.

[New Judge]

We're somewhat splitting hairs, AB, but the regulations in question are not separate rules for different types of vehicle. They are different (contradictory) rules for the same type of vehicle. Two separate rules exist for large HGVs: that requiring them to be governed down to 56mph and those requiring them not to be driven in excess of 60mph. It's utterly ridiculous.

The other two examples you quote (the blanket 50mph temporary speed restriction and the MoT matter) are hardly analogous. When a 50mph temporary limit is in force it applies to all vehicles and is not overridden by mechanical equipment fitted on the vehicle being set at a different rate. (You might as well say the two things are contradictory because the speed limiter allows the lorry to travel at 56mph when the limit is 50mph).

I don't know of any circumstances where a vehicle would pass its MoT test whilst being mechanically dangerous. I know it can become dangerous shortly after leaving the testing station, but that is not the situation at the time it is tested.

[jake-the-peg]

This is the wrong solution.

There main problem is HGVs overtaking each other at slow speeds when the motorways are too busy to support it.

Any regular user of the motorways will tell you that too.

Simply ban lorries from the central lane at rush hours you'll get much better traffic flows.

[ABerrant]

Not all HGVs are required to have limiters fitted; those (newer) that are limited cannot achieve the posted maximum speed, those (older) non-limited can drive at the posted maximum - ergo two types of HGV.

An MOT test is very specific in its scope of examination - a car has a vastly greater number of non-testable items than testable. A mechanically dangerous non-testable item may exist throughout the examination and never be noted.

[New Judge]

We'll have to agree to differ on whether they are two different types of vehicle, AB. They are the same type as far as the national speed limit goes.

I cannot think of any non-testable item which, if faulty, would render a car mechanically dangerous so as to attract a separate offence.

[Old_Geezer]

Why not solve it by getting them to drive onto the train wagons, letting the train take the strain to the local destination station, and then they can drive the short distance from there at 56 mph.

[boxtops]

That would be good O_G, if we had any goods stations near here - the only stations here in Dover, Folkestone and Ashford are passenger only - the lorries just roll off the train or ferries, straight onto the motorways.

[mushroom25]

j-t-p, there's a short stretch of the m42 between j10 and 11 where HGVs are confined to lane 1 between 7am and 7pm - at least in theory.

in practice, the limit is not enforced and is consequently widely ignored. any similar limit imposed in rush hours is also likely to be treated with contempt.

[hc4361]

I believe the 90kph was set for maximum fuel efficiency, not safety.

[ABerrant]

Agree to disagree NJ.

As to the MOT side issue, I do not understand your meaning of "separate offence" if that does not include an offence such as "Causing or likely to cause danger by reason of use of unsuitable vehicle or use of a vehicle with parts or accessories (excluding brakes, steering or tyres) in a dangerous condition".

Not only is it possible for a dangerous non-testable item to exist throughout a successful MOT examination and be missed by the tester, it can also be noticed by the tester and warrant no more than a "dangerous" advisory.

The procedure for this situation is specified in the MOT Test Manual:

VT32 – Advisory Notice
This is used to advise the vehicle presenter of any items that in opinion of the NT require written notification. For example:

· a testable item which is only just passable and may need attention soon; or

· an item which is not within the scope of the MOT test and may need attention; or

· any peculiarity of the vehicle (e.g. front passenger seat missing).

If the NT considers an item on the vehicle, whether testable or not, to be so defective that it renders the vehicle dangerous to drive on the road, the NT must notify the vehicle presenter of the nature of such defects. This must be recorded in box C of the VT32 as appropriate. All dangerous defects must be explained to the vehicle presenter.

http://www.motinfo.go...tdocs/tgs0h000106.htm

[New Judge]

I think we're digressing a bit from poor old rov's original question, AB !!!

But (finally from me) of course if an item is missed by the tester it may mean a vehicle with a dangerous defect “passes” its MoT. I think in those circumstances it is not really accurate to say the vehicle has passed its MoT.

By a “separate offence” I mean that I cannot envisage a situation where a vehicle legitimately passes its MoT but there exists on that vehicle (at the time of the test) a dangerous defect (that is “not testable”) that might attract a prosecution in its own right. Of course, as you rightly point out the test only examines the vehicle at the time of the test and faults may develop any time between tests, from one minute after it is driven away. I further agree that it is no defence to say that because the vehicle passed its MoT that faults arising subsequently need not be addressed until the next test. But I see no contradiction or conflict in the law as I certainly see with the speed issue.

I’m all for giving this one up as I think we’ve unfairly hijacked rov’s question !!!!

[ABerrant]

NJ - We seem to have been at cross purposes for much of this thread.

MOT Tester examines vehicle, passes all testable items and notices dangerous non-testable item.
MOT Pass Certificate issued along with Advisory for a dangerous non-testable item as per MOT Testers Manual.
Dangerous non-testable item prosecutable under C&U regs.
CU20 = 3 points.

MOT Pass plus dangerous defect and the car has not left the test bay.
Cannot explain myself any clearer and also give up! ;-)