I'm not sure that's the ethical way to challenge the legality of a new vehicle.
It certainly won't help in the eyes of the anti lorry brigade, and I'm surprised at denby's doing it this way.
Pat
|
|
Didn't think it was a good argument against L(H)Vs by Stephen Joseph 'Campaign for better transport' (1:50) - basically saying if you allow this then where do you stop. Surely it stops when you come up with a good argument for stopping - which he didn't provide.
|
|
|
pda
If Denby have managed to convince their insurers as to the merit and legality of this combination, which I can only conclude they have.
Then :Good, carry on. The law is after all "an ass"
Plus the gentleman interviewed on behalf of Denbys appeared to be exactly that, a gentleman.
I come to this with a farming perspective, in respect of which the law relating to transport is apparently NOT clear.
So there are indeed "grey areas" , which will only be settled by case law accruing, if that makes sense.
cheers
M
Ps
I agree with Focus P as above
Edited by dieseldogg on 01/12/2009 at 10:18
|
The length of these things is not safe or practical for UK roads. There will be accidents and inconvenience. They should not be allowed.
|
Agreed - a normal artic is bad enough on a roundabout, imagine getting on the inside of one of these, regardless of how tight its turning circle is.
It would also only be a matter of time before some foolish driver tried to take one under the 12'6" arched bridge near me. Backing up a normal artic is bad enough due to severe lack of space for reversing and turning - one of these would cause real problems.
|
Agreed - a normal artic is bad enough on a roundabout imagine getting on the inside of one of these regardless of how tight its turning circle is.
Simple don't do it! I don't.
Edited by Old Navy on 01/12/2009 at 11:20
|
If it's narrow I always avoid it, but not all roundabouts are the same.
I doubt anyone can say they NEVER get on the inside of an artic at EVERY roundabout they come across - I know I can't.
On larger roundabouts with lights you can be waiting for a green, but an HGV catches the "green wave" of lights and has no need to stop, so ends up undertaking whilst also turning into the radius of the roundabout.
|
|
|
|
>>>>Then :Good, carry on. The law is after all "an ass"<<<<
But is it 'an ass'?
Certainly in this case, I don't think it is.
It's what we all have to abide by and just because we disagree with a law, doesn't mean we can go out and challenge it by breaking it.
>>>>Plus the gentleman interviewed on behalf of Denbys appeared to be exactly that, a gentleman<<<<<
It still doesn't allow him to flout the law, even if he does say please and thankyou!
>>>I come to this with a farming perspective,<<<
Now I can see why your in favour!
Pat
|
It's what we all have to abide by and just because we disagree with a law doesn't mean we can go out and challenge it by breaking it.
But they are challenging it because it isn't clear - they might not be breaking it at all, just trying to clarify it.
BTW I'm not saying LHVs are a good thing.
Edited by Focus {P} on 01/12/2009 at 11:07
|
Clearly the law needs to be clarified in this case. Going out with such a vehicle is
a: not the way to clarify it
b: not a very goof public relations for your case.
He may be a gentleman, but he is being stupid , pigheaded and obtuse.
|
He may be a gentleman but he is being stupid pigheaded and obtuse.
:-)
|
|
|
Unfortunately IT IS the way to clarify it. I know form experience that VOSA will not commit to anything, they "might" give you their opinion on some matters, but always end the sentence with "but it is your responsibility and we may still prosecute".
I have been trying to get clarification on a couple of issues for a long while and still no further forward!!
There is also the case up in Scotland where a local authority was/is using 7.5t artics, VOSA would not give a final answer on their use by drivers who did not hold a C+E licence, it never went to court and the prosecution dropped the case!!!
I would suspect much the same will happen here. At the end of the day the C&U regs state that a vehicle should be able to turn within 2 circles, and this vehicle fulfils that test - Denby's believe it is legal, and I say good luck to them - VOSA won't commit themselves so to get an answer Denby's have to do this!!
As for all the "use the trains" etc, they don't work for our size country, great for the likes of europe, USA and other large continents, but for an island that you can drive virtually the length of in one driving period (10 hours driving) then this is the cheapest and quickest way to move goods from A to B - get used to it, it aint gonna change no matter what!!!
|
>>>>you can drive virtually the length of in one driving period (10 hours driving)<<<<
Yes, it's one thing bosses and transport managers have in common. They can shrink a map at one glance!
Pat
|
Hardly Pat, I spent 15 years behind the wheel, I have far less of an agenda then you do! You can get from the Southampton to the borders of Scotland in a shift quite easily.
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite clear.
Former transport secretary Ruth Kelly rejected calls to allow them on the roads.
Also, the Department for Transport (DfT) has stated it still considers the use of any LHV on UK roads as illegal.
Flouting this ruling isn't the way forward IMHO, there are better ways it could have been done, to maintain public support.
The first RTA an LHV is involved in will see the statements above remembered!
Pat
Edited by pda on 01/12/2009 at 11:25
|
Playing devil's advocate here; the LHV combination is no bigger, longer, heavier or more inconvenient to other motorists than many of the travelling fairground rigs, and they seem to be perfectly legal.
To the previous poster who cuts inside artics on roundabouts; more fool you for doing so!
|
So, if, as often the case on this Forum, his insurers will be SO hard to reason with or deal with.
How has he got insurance?
Do you really think he is knowingly driving uninsured?
I think not.
Therefore he must have persuaded his insurers that what he is doing is reasonably argueably legal?
Cheers
Ps
I am assuming that he will ONLY be driving on Motorways, trunk roads, distribution centres etc. ie where safe to do so
PPS
How about all those car drivers who cannot drive & especially reverse on country roads.
Moats & beams ( in the eye)
|
BBC R4 reported just now
A road haulage company based in Lincoln has been prevented from putting a 25m super-truck on the road in the UK.
The BiB stopped it before it left on its trip
|
Two things struck me in reading this thread
1. The number of people who almost certainly break the speed limit daily are indignant because a haulier plans to use a lorry that MIGHT be illegal.
2. How come you can never find a policeman when you want one but when they try to drive out of their yard the police just happen to be there. Is it a case of no offense means no test case?
|
He announced to the world that he was going out today to break the EXISTING law.
Surely the BiB acted correctly?
Pat
Edited by pda on 01/12/2009 at 13:10
|
He announced to the world that he was going out today to break the EXISTING law.
Not correct - he announced that he wanted to test the law - Denby believe what they tried to do is LEGAL.
|
|
Pat - do you know what the existing law is? Ie. what does it say about length?
|
|
its too long,im surprised an insurer gave him the go ahead, this is exactly why we have vosa thankfully
|
its too long im surprised an insurer gave him the go ahead this is exactly why we have vosa thankfully
Clearly spoken by someone who does not have to have daily dealings with the incompetent fools more commonly known as VOSA!!!!!
|
|
R75 what do you mean by that?
|
Would that be the same incompetent fool who thinks a lorry driver can get from one end of the country to the other, in a 10 hour driving period? :)
I rest my case.
Pat
|
Pat, I have long since stopped responding to your inane posts, long before you ever reared your head on this forum, you have your own agenda, one in which you seem to think the vast majority of drivers follow you in - you are wrong, and have been proved so many times, most drivers who frequent forums actually detest what you think you stand for - you do not speak for them even though in your self appointed role, you think you do!!
If you look at my post I said you can get almost from one end of the country to the other, now as far as I can remember England is still a country, and you can certainly get from Southampton up to the borders of Scotland within 10 hours, if you can't then I would suggest that you are hanging out the job and should look for a new job!!!
|
If you look at my post I said you can get almost from one end of the country to the other
"but for an island that you can drive virtually the length of in one driving period (10 hours driving)"
|
|
Soto'n to Edinburgh, about 8.5 hours on a good day, still leaves you with 1.5 hours to spare to get further north. That to me is most of the "Island" certainly most of the most densely populated areas of the "Island", which after all is where you will find the majority of trucks going!!!
|
Soto'n to Edinburgh about 8.5 hours on a good day
Fair enough, but the use of sarcasm in your reply to Pat still seems unjustified.("now as far as I can remember England is still a country").
|
|
Pat was and is trying to be difficult for the sake of it, as well as making complete non points, her views that "TM's can shrink a map" (or similar words) is just nonsense, some of us know our jobs from the inside out and have started at the bottom working our way up and learning all the way - If she can't do it in that time then there is something wrong with her ability or there was an unforeseen problem on the way.
|
Yes I do know who you are R75. I've never backed down from you in the past and nothing has changed!
As far as I am aware, I'm still entitled to have an opinion and debate my point though.
I'm certainly able to do it without insults, which you seem incapable of.
As Focus points out this island doesn't start at Southampton or end at the Scottish Borders:)
Pat
|
"Would that be the same incompetent fool who thinks a lorry driver can get from one end of the country to the other, in a 10 hour driving period? :)
I rest my case.
Pat"
Would seem like an insult to me!!!!
I rest my case!!!!
And I would point out that to debate a point you would need to have a counter argument, one you seem to be unable to produce with regards to how far you can travel in 10 hours!!
|
I must have mellowed with age, I refuse to rise to the bait R75:)
Back on topic there is a more in depth report here
tinyurl.com/ybam2mo
Pat
|
|
There was nothing to rise to Pat, I countered your argument, with reasoned argument, if you cant manage that then please don't try and lower the thread by accusing me of baiting you. If I had wanted to do that then I would have done so much, much, earlier in the thread.
|
The bait I refuse to rise to, is you trying to turn this into a personal argument. My email address is shown openly if you want to do that.
If you want 'reasoned' argument then look at the mileage from Penzance to Thurso and tell me how to do that in 10 hours?
That is what your original statement implied.
However, it has nothing to do with the OP, so what's the point?
Pat
|
|
Grow up Pat, stop trying to turn everything into a personal vendetta against you/drivers/women (delete as applicable). I made a point and you tried to trivialise it but provided no evidence to back it up. Now 4 or 5 posts later you pick 2 of the furthest points apart and use them as an example. at least my example was realistic Soto'n to E'burgh, quite a normal route for a container!!!! Although I admit my earlier post might have been somewhat a generalisation, you can still drive the majority of the country/island in a 10 hour driving shift!
|
There was nothing to rise to Pat
But to a non-expert like myself that's how it came across, deliberate or not.
Personally I didn't see what was wrong with Pat's post - UK is 700 miles top to bottom, over 800 if you want to get from one tip to the other, and I don't see how you can do either of those in 10 hours at 56mph. If I've misunderstood then I'd be happy to be politely told where I'm going wrong.
|
|
well then why not include the scilly isles and the shetlands as well then, you can add a few more miles onto your 700 or 800. I said the MAJORITY could be covered in a 10 hour drive, certainly the major industrial areas, I was not intending on teaching people the finer points of logistics, I had assumed the majority on here had enough of an idea with out macro level detail needed.
|
I said the MAJORITY
Again fair enough, but I would have been a lot more willing to accept your point of view if you had pointed that out succinctly in your earlier post, instead of calling what appeared to me to be reasonable posts 'inane' and using sarcasm.
|
Can we keep to the point of this thread and stop having a go at each other.
Thanks
|
BB, whilst VOSA have some very good inspectors, most are unwilling to actually put their money where their mouth is, the HQ up at Leeds is a complete farce which has only succeeded in slowing down applications and changes.
If you ask them for clarification on any points they give a wishy washey answer that is non committal - the inspectors seem scared to ever voice an opinion in case they then have to defend that in court.
Thats what I mean.
|
Doesn't the 18 metre length limit only apply to drawbar outfits, i.e. a rigid lorry towing a separate trailer? The vehicle here in question is a double-articulated outfit. So, arguably, it is illegal on two counts. 1) It exceeds the length limit for articulated vehicles and 2) Double-articlated LGVs are not permitted on our roads.
I would be questioning whether the transport manager responsible for sending this vehicle out on the road was fit for their job. The Traffic Commissioners might want to look into the conditions of this company's operator's licence too.
What gets me is not the possibility of B-train double-artics as such, it's the arrogance of a company that thinks it can outsmart the law. Presumably the vehicle got through the MOT by the tractor and each individual trailer passing separately. (LGV trailers need MOTs, unlike car ones)
Edited by Sofa Spud on 01/12/2009 at 14:46
|
I dont think it would be classed as a drawbar, so would not be eligible for the 18.75m length (is way over that anyway). Not sure how Dendby's were proposing to use it on the road (i.e. as an artic or drawbar), no where seems to be commenting on that - is possible that the tractive unit is classed as a locomotive and as such can legally draw two or even 3 trailers - again though really not sure about that either!!
I know I would not want to be the TM on the licence, but do fully support their intentions, and as I have said earlier, after my own wranglins with VOSA fully understand where they are coming from!
Oh, and all tractive units and trailers go through MOT's separately.
|
|
EDIT: seems it might be classed as a locomotive or motor tractor, thereby enabling it to pull 2 trailers as long as not exceeding 25.9m (which it seems it is under at 25.25m) Maybe this is what they are trying to test in law!
|
Thats what I mean.
>>
>>>>>>> right :-)
I see vosa quite often and a lot of them are overworked and understaffed.
They are just another tick box application to me but i still believe they do a good job and yes ive fallen out with them a few times ,have the paperwork to prove it,-- but will say when you go to the top at bristol its always sorted so i rate them fairly highly.
Havent dealt with the new traffic office at leeds yet though ,but yes its very difficult for a definative answer in fact i was at vosa doncaster last week and the paperwork on the wall they were displaying was all wrong and out of date but i decided to just get on with my life to be honest and said nothing.
Theres an awful lot of corner cutting in road haulage ,always has been so roadside checks even though we all dread them and im the first to admit ive done detours to get round them do actually do necessary work even though noone will admit it
just like tachos the lorry drivers friend
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the BBC report of it being 'grounded by police'
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8388420.s...m
EDIT: ..actually a short clip tacked onto the beginning of the earlier clip
Edited by Focus {P} on 01/12/2009 at 15:04
|
Quote:...""EDIT: seems it might be classed as a locomotive or motor tractor, thereby enabling it to pull 2 trailers as long as not exceeding 25.9m (which it seems it is under at 25.25m) Maybe this is what they are trying to test in law!""
Unless this bit of old legislation has changed, both trailers have to be unladen and the vehicle is limited to a low speed - 20 mph, I think. This is the regulation that permits travelling showmen's vehicles to tow 2 trailers - although they probably exceed 20 mph a lot of the time.
There is a precedent for C&U regulations being tested in this way, in the 1950's. Midland Red bus company, which made its own buses at the time, stretched one of its older single deckers to an excessive length, as a demo vehicle - I think it was 45 feet or so. Eventually Midland Red got permission to take this contraption onto the streets. It wasn't fully fitted out as a bus and didn't carry passengers. As a result of this, partly, the length limit for single decker buses was raised in the early 1960s from 30 feet to 36 feet.
|
Sofa
How would the fairground lorries be deemed to be "unladen"
forby the speed issue.
|
|
|
Quote:...""Given that there is no realistic alternative to road transport for the majority of goods, this might be no bad thing if they are used on suitable routes. It will reduce the number of lorries and the quantity of fuel used.
It will be worth considering safety on motorways though, and how it could be improved. I wouldn't like to contemplate the consequences of one of those running into the back of a queue.""
Although I think this transport operator was wrong to try this arrogant publicity stunt, I agree that double artics might not be so bad ab idea if confined to the motorway and trunk dual-carriageway network plus a few very short access routes to that network.
I think that they're not talking about this particular double artic exceeding the current 44-tonne gross weight limit - and it has more axles, and therefore brakes, than a conventional artic, so it should be able to stop quite quickly. The problem I imagine is if it starts to double jacknife when it stops.
The fairground trailers are 'unladen' because they usually have fairground rides permanently mounted on them, which counts as attached plant or equipment, and not as a load. Or they might be living vans.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 01/12/2009 at 15:35
|
tinyurl.com/ybopyh3
This isn't over yet.
Pat
|
He's been issued with a notice saying he can't drive it on the roads but they decided not to take him to court... So he wants it to go to court... which will then cost the tax payer umpteen thousands just to clarify whether he can run it... well if he wants to do it that way he should pay all the costs for both sides...
Surely there has to be a cheaper way... or perhaps he just has to accept that the powers that be (and much of the driving public I suspect) don't want the damn things on the road.
Edited by b308 on 19/12/2009 at 08:26
|
My feeling exactly on this one B308.
There are times when you have to admit defeat.
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
