They do a lot of damage turning corners around here, crushing pedestrian railings and bollards, the current ones are already too long, and the cheap casual agency drivers are very poor, as are the increasing numbers of foreign ones in left hand drive trucks.
The other day, I saw a foreign truck in rush hour turning left at a crossroads, the lights changed twice while he was turning left, he knocked the centre bollard with his front off-side, and then with the rear overhang at the back, he totally destroyed a new Mondeo, and then straightened up and was away, the Mondeo couldn't chase as cars then started to zoom along the ring road at 40mph and he couldn't tunr into the stream through the red light.
|
and then with the rear overhang at the back, he totally destroyed a new Mondeo,
So yet again we have yet another car driver who places himself in a dangerous position and thinks truck drivers can magically see through 44ft of solid object.
|
So yet again we have yet another car driver who places himself in a dangerous position and thinks truck drivers can magically see through 44ft of solid object.
No, it was the trucks fault. The Mondeo was in the right hand marked lane lane to turn right behind others, and the truck in the left lane to turn left, the truck driver failed to position, use his mirrors, and judge the corner.
|
|
|
|
>>They do no more damage to the road then any other truck as the weight is spread out over all the axles
That is rubbish.Bearing in mind it was said before about trucks used now will not damage roads,so what has happened,constant repairs(in some cases lack of).I very much doubt bigger HGV`s are going to help,and any savings made by firms unlikely to be passed on to consumer
--
Steve
|
At the end of the day tarmac is not some magical indistructable substance, every thing wears out over time.
Why dont all you anti truck people think abit further than the end of your nose, these 60 tonne doubles will have the same loading carrying capacity as 2 artics, so therefore they will be doing less damage to the road as 2 artics = 2 tractor units, two trailers, 1 60 tonne double = 1 tractor unit 2 trailers, taking away the weight of 1 tractor unit everytime a double artic is used.
The normal run of the mill artic normally weights about 40-44 tonne so if 2 artics are running together, thats 80-88 tonne, if a double is used even if its allowed to run at the same loaded weight as 2 trailers, you will still be saving the 8-9 tonne that the average tractor unit weights as only one is required, seems simple enough to me, oh and then of course you have the added bonus of half the damage to the o zone layer as it will be only half the amount of gas emissions being released.
|
Blimey I'd hate to see the result of one of those not checking its blindspot and just moving over, as lorries have a habit of doing.
Surely a longer lorry will mean it will take even longer for it to pull itself up hills, meaning more lorries overtaking eachother and more tailbacks? Can we start the campaign now for them to be banned from the A34?
I don't get the part about them only being used on motorways either. Surely they have to get to the motorway - you can't just have loads of abandoned trailers on the hard shoulders.
Am I missing the point completely?
|
|
I'm a truck driver and I wouldn't want to drive one. The ones we have are hard enough to manouvre as it is. Limited savings in journeys and environmental impact on certain jobs versus increased risk of loosng control. Plus if you crashed one..... As an aside, I think we should ban all left hand drive lorries from our roads, saw 2 foreign blind spot bashers on the southbound m1 today as I was going north. Same story as many other days, I think the record is seeing 4 in one journey on the m25, least they could do is make blind spot mirrors compulsory fit on foreign lorries entering the uk, no mirror, no entry.
|
They're LORRIES not trucks. Trucks are what a goods train pulls.
Mr.Pedant.
|
Actually trucks are part of a goods train which is pulled by a locomotive.
|
So if truck drivers were called truckies, what are lorry drivers called?
--
Adam
|
Patricko, so you would ban all left hand drives?? So I would be banned in my left hand drive UK registered truck?? How silly.
I drive a LHD as I spend most of my time on the continent. What if the Europeans banned right hand drives from Europe?? None of these blinkered car drivers would be able to drive down to their chataeux in Provence and the like. Please engage brain before opening mouth :o)
Pologirl, you are a typical NIMBY. So where would the traffic coming out of Southampton and providing the west country with their goods go?? Up the A36?? All through that beautiful countryside destroying THEIR environment? Or shall we take the really long way round and destroy loads of countryside by using the A3, the M25 and then the M4.
The fact is lorries have been here for ever and they aren't going to go away. If car drivers were to pay lorries and their drivers a bit more respect, then there wouldn't be the accidents there are. How many people see a blatantly obvious LHD foreign vehicle taking his time and give him the room he needs to make his manoeuvre. Not many as so many car drivers have one thought .......... I must get in front of that lorry.
Please remember that it is BECAUSE lorry drivers drive defensively that there are not a whole lot more deaths on the road then there are!!! I could have one or two accidents a week because of purely thoughtless car drivers but being high up, I can see potential problems before a car driver and so make the appropiate decision. For every bad lorry driver, there are 10 bad car drivers... remember that
|
>>. For every bad lorry driver, there are 10 bad car drivers... remember that
Which isn't all that, since for every truck there are 20 cars.
And I know you can see loads from high up, that's why so many of you are on your mobile phones telling each other about stuff you've seen - that and discussing where the latest cheap offer is for silly blue disco lights for your cab.
Goods, or at least a lot of them, should be put back on the trains where they belong.
|
"Goods, or at least a lot of them, should be put back on the trains where they belong."
Trains cost us the tax payers money for every mile they travel, whilst HGV's pay tax for every mile they travel.
The cost of putting goods on the train would be higher taxes & prices.
Whilst by using HGV's we get an income in tax, unless of course it's a foreign registered HGV running of foreign diesel, in which case we get no income but pay nothing either, but it's still cheaper than by train.
|
After taking in job creation, savings in benefits, railway investment, reduced spending on road maintenance, reduced cost of congestion, reduced polution from congestion, and so on and so forth I'm quite sure that you don't know whether it would be more or less expensive.
Nonetheless, even if it is more expensive that is not really the point. Believing that cheap is good is a) a recent phenomenon and b) simplistic and c) wrong.
By the way, I rather thought that the railways had been mostly privatised, but I guess you probably missed that bit.
|
After taking in job creation, savings in benefits, railway investment, reduced spending on road maintenance, reduced cost of congestion, reduced polution from congestion, and so on and so forth I'm quite sure that you don't know whether it would be more or less expensive.
Yes we do, the rail industry is very heavily subsidised.
The Road Haulage industry pays very large amounts of both Fuel tax & Road tax.
The rail industry removes tax the road haulage industry pays tax, it's a very simple calculation.
Nonetheless, even if it is more expensive that is not really the point. Believing that cheap is good is a) a recent phenomenon and b) simplistic and c) wrong.
The income from those who use the roads far exceeds, by hundreds of billions of pounds, the cost of road spending, so if that income is reduced so will tax spending.
Either that or we will have to cut back spending on things like Schools & Hospitals etc.
Either That or increase taxes.
Road haulage is cheaper for the consumer who will have to pay much more for their goods if transported by rail. Cheaper for the tax payer who will instead of a tax income have a tax output & cheaper for the rail user, as every time rail freight is increased, rail reliability reduces.
By the way, I rather thought that the railways had been mostly privatised, but I guess you probably missed that bit.
Not at all, it is still a tax black hole & one which is not going to disappear.
Just because we have the ability to transport more goods by rail & just because the rail industry is private profit not a nationalised industry, it does not mean that it is a good idea or financially viable to use it.
|
Goods, or at least a lot of them, should be put back on the trains where they belong.
>>
Or even on canals, where a proportion could go.
|
Goods, or at least a lot of them, should be put back on the trains where they belong.
Absolutely fine. Now all we need to do is stop Joe Consumer from expecting everything to be on the shelf when he goes in the shops..
|
|
The problem is most car drivers don't know the difference between the various classes of vehicles on our road, so both Truck & Lorry gets used to describe vans (a class of car.)
By using the term HGV driver you avoid the problems.
Any numb skull who passed their test in a car before a certain date can drive both C1 & D1 with no training or experience & call themselves a bus, truck or lorry driver.
An HGV or PSV driver has been trained & tested by someone who has passed a DSA driving test in that class of vehicle, whilst most C1 & D1 driving trainers have never taken a DSA driving test in anything bigger than a car.
These drivers are not Bus, Truck or Lorry divers, they are a car driver, because this is the licence they drive hold.
So the term HGV driver or Car driver avoids the car driver from claiming a standard of training they do not have. It also avoids those of us who have paid the money & been passed, by the DSA, from being classed with those who couldn't or wouldn't pay the money & pass a DSA test.
As for 60 tonne HGV's in the UK. This is something which raises it's head from time to time, it's nothing new & it will probably do exactly what is has done in the past. Disappear until next time.
The chances of this becoming legal are the same as the last time it was discussed, slim to impossible, not because no one wants it, but because it's not on the political agenda.
|
|
|
So if truck drivers were called truckies, what are lorry drivers called? -- Adam
Probably lorry drivers as lorries are the things that deliver your daily bread.
Amen :).
|
|
|
So if truck drivers were called truckies, what are lorry drivers called? -- Adam
Lorry drivers.
|
|
|
|
Actually trucks are part of a goods train which is pulled by a locomotive.
I'll keep feeding the lines....
I thought of that when I hit the 'post' button. Alas, too late as always.
|
|
|
|
They're LORRIES not trucks.
Only if you're old-fashioned, don't work for a haulier, or don't work for a truck (or truck component) manufacturer!!
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
>> They're LORRIES not trucks. Only if you're old-fashioned, don't work for a haulier, or don't work for a truck (or truck component) manufacturer!! -- L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
Or if you're trying to be american... so coool.
|
>> >> They're LORRIES not trucks. >> >> Only if you're old-fashioned, don't work for a haulier, or don't >> work for a truck (or truck component) manufacturer!! >> -- >> L\'escargot by name, but not by nature. >> Or if you're trying to be american... so coool.
They're trucks I tell you!!
www.scania.co.uk/Our_trucks/
www.daftrucks.com/
www.truck-busters.co.uk/seddon-atkinson-truck-part...m
www.erf.com/
www.foden.com/default.asp
......to mention but a few.
Reminds me of that Mexican poem:-
Si senor, derdago
Forte lorrez inaro
Demarnt lorrez, demar trux
Fulov cowsand ensand dux!
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blimey I'd hate to see the result of one of those not checking its blindspot and just moving over, as lorries have a habit of doing.
No...that's you not looking further than the end of your bonnet and amply demonstrating a complete lack of anticipation.
Surely a longer lorry will mean it will take even longer for it to pull itself up hills, meaning more lorries overtaking eachother and more tailbacks?
Nope. Bigger lorry = bigger engine.
I don't get the part about them only being used on motorways either. Surely they have to get to the motorway - you can't just have loads of abandoned trailers on the hard shoulders.
Have you ever drive on a motorway? You'll notice that at many points directly adjacent to them, there's these things called Industrial Estates where you'll find these other things called Distribution Centres.
Am I missing the point completely?
Yes.
|
|
|
Blimey I'd hate to see the result of one of those not checking its blindspot and just moving over, as lorries have a habit of doing.
Yes, just as motorists have a habit of not even realising a wagon HAS a blindspot in the first place. And not realising that 44 tonnes can't stop on a sixpence. And not realising that they might actually be taking up two lanes for a reason. And.....
Surely a longer lorry will mean it will take even longer for it to pull itself up hills, meaning more lorries overtaking eachother and more tailbacks?
No, because they will be fitted with the size of engine more usually found in heavy-haulage outfits and as such will have a power-to-weight ratio of only slightly less than a 'normal' artic.
Can we start the campaign now for them to be banned from the A34?
What a good idea! Now why don't you also start a campaign to explain to residents in the area why their shops are empty, petrol stations have no petrol, pubs have no beer and any one of the million things that rely on trucks to be transported.... wake up for goodness sake!
Am I missing the point completely?
Yes. I think you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve,
Axle loads really haven't changed much for a long time. The real villain of the piece, which became popular after the introduction of 38 tonne trucks in the mid eighties, is, IMO, the wide super single tyre.
People tend to assume that the contact pressure between tyre and road is constant within the contact patch, and equal to the tyre pressure. However, the areas near the sidewalls and the front and rear edges of the contact patch are more highly stressed, because of the higher local stiffness.
The old-fashioned dual tyres have four sidewalls, and hence share the concentrations in load more equally. Super singles cause significantly more damage in smooth running conditions, like motorways.
The technical advantages offered by super singles are increased rollover threshold, and reduced dynamic tyre load, which slightly reduces road damage on bumpy roads. There are, of course, significant economic and operational advantages to using super singles.
Number_Cruncher
|
Hi NC,best explanation yet and logical answer to why the damage occurs on tarmac as it does.I had noticed that the ridges created by artics were more lumps and dips and never in a straight line.which for some cars can throw the steering,I know I had one that did
--
Steve
|
|
|
|
That is rubbish.
No it isn't but thankyou for amply displaying your lack of intelligence.
Bearing in mind it was said before about trucks used now will not damage roads,so what has happened,constant repairs(in some cases lack of).
Blame the cheapskates building the roads.
|
>>No it isn't but thankyou for amply displaying your lack of intelligence.
I would suggest,this lack of intelligence applies to those that wish to increase the weight of HGV`s and to road planners.Those contractors that build the roads only do as asked(cheapskates or not they are to my knowledge controled by local council)Please correct if wrong?.
Apart from the suggestion that larger HGV`s will mean a reduction in the amount on the roads.What happens to drivers that are not needed?,and how long will it be before these larger HGV`s become the norm replacing older HGV`s ie numbers rise
--
Steve
|
Apart from the suggestion that larger HGV`s will mean a reduction in the amount on the roads.What happens to drivers that are not needed?,and how long will it be before these larger HGV`s become the norm replacing older HGV`s ie numbers rise -- Steve
There are not enough HGV drivers as it is, so your first point is probably moot. As to the second one.... Not gonna happen. Do you think you could manoeuvre a two-trailer rig with three pivot points into your local Asda? Of course not. Although given the average motorist's knowledge of trucks (amply demonstrated here), I'd expect most of you would think it could be!
|
|
|
I would suggest,this lack of intelligence applies to those that wish to increase the weight of HGV`s and to road planners.
How? THere's not enough HGV drivers in the UK - a shortage of around 50,000. UK hauliers cannot meet the demand. Why is it stupid to have one driver delivering 40 pallets instead of two in a vehicle that does NO MORE damage than one which can only deliver 26?
> Those contractorsthat build the roads only do as asked
...by us, the taxpayer who refuse to pay anymore than we absolutely have to.
Apart from the suggestion that larger HGV`s will mean a reduction in the amount on the roads.What happens to drivers that are not needed?
No such thing. Currently, the shortage stands around 50-80,000 drivers. The average age of HGV drivers in the UK is 53 and rising every year as fewer younger people come into it. Less people are applying for licences than those leaving.
and how long will it be before these larger HGV`s become the norm replacing older HGV`s ie numbers rise
They won't in the UK except on RDC to RDC work.
|
|
|
|
|
">>>>They do no more damage to the road then any other truck as the weight is spread out over all the axles
>>That is rubbish.Bearing in mind it was said before about trucks
>>used now will not damage roads,so what has happened,constant >>repairs(in some cases lack of).I very much doubt bigger HGV`s are >>going to help,and any savings made by firms unlikely to be passed >>on to consumer...."
Did you actually read that before responding? I doubt it. It is NOT rubbish - it's correct. Axle weights on 60-tonne wagons will not be any more than on those that use the road today, as the 60-tonner will have more axles to spread the weight over. Hence, they will NOT damage the road any more than your run-of-the-mill Sainsbury's truck.
|
|
|
|
As Truckersunite correctly points out this was all discussed before on the "25 metre trucks" thread at:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=30701&...f
(hope that url works.)
Double artics are not the end of the world. We have lots of them here in Australia and they don't cause any problems provided that they are properly regulated - specially trained drivers, appropriate vehicles and only allowed on approved routes. I would think that doubles would be quite enough though. Don't try triples.
|
Has anybody actually considered that the only reason the roads have such bad surfaces, and require so much maintenance, is not because trucks are too heavy, but because the maintenance is always done by the cheapest contractor, using the cheapest materials, and was never actually up to the job in the first place ??
|
Has anybody actually considered that the only reason the roads have such bad surfaces, and require so much maintenance, is not because trucks are too heavy, but because the maintenance is always done by the cheapest contractor, using the cheapest materials, and was never actually up to the job in the first place ??
Precisely. Anyone driven on the concrete sections of the A1? Notice how they never needed any work?
Anyone live near Tuxford to Newark? Notice that now they've replaced that slightly noisy concrete surface to keep the locals happy that the locals are now kept awake at least two months every year or so because of resurfacing works and have to suffer the noise and pollution of the 7 mile tailbacks at the roadwords?
|
|
|
|
|
I drove from Bristol to London on the M4 a couple of years ago and counted the most common vehicle types seen over 100 miles or so, what do you think I saw most of, Ford Foci, VX Astras, perhaps 3 Series?
No Scania R Series tractor units.
|
I drove from Bristol to London on the M4 a couple of years ago and counted the most common vehicle types seen over 100 miles or so, what do you think I saw most of, Ford Foci, VX Astras, perhaps 3 Series? No Scania R Series tractor units.
Wow, Are you sure it was couple of years ago??? The R series was not out then it was the 4 series. ;o)
|
>> I drove from Bristol to London on the M4 a couple >> of years ago and counted the most common vehicle types seen >> over 100 miles or so, what do you think I saw >> most of, Ford Foci, VX Astras, perhaps 3 Series? >> >> No Scania R Series tractor units. >> Wow, Are you sure it was couple of years ago??? The R series was not out then it was the 4 series. ;o)
Ok, I am talking about the '97 on 400, 420, 470, 480, 530, 580 etc.
|
|
|
|
Oh well, if its like last time you'll all rattle around causing noise and then wander off again after a while.
Or maybe this thread will be locked and conveniently "forgotten about" - again?
|
|
|
I guess we'll be getting the "knights of the road keeping the country running single-handedly" stuff any moment now.
If you've got it, it came on a truck.
Was funny hearing a muppet on BBC2 arguing about HGVs possibly getting a fuel discount saying that as he was a rep he should get it too because if he didn't do his job, they'd have no work. Shame he forgot that unless the lorries brought the raw materials into his factory in the first place, his company would have nothing to make anything with for him to sell.
Perhaps we should go out on all out strike.
|
Perhaps we should go out on all out strike.
What! and make even more work for the Armed Forces. They do the 'HGV professional driver' bit as a sideline!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Tesbury's, they will cut the cost of delivering goods which might just filter through to all of our pockets."
Nope.
They will however increase the profit margin for ascoburo
|
|
|
|
