Safe Speed Forums

See this news story:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100 ... teid=50081

Truckers' police speed challenge

Feb 5 2004


By Robert Brooks, The Journal


Truck drivers have challenged Northumbria Police's top officer to take a trip down the A1 in a lorry - to see first-hand the impact a 40mph speed limit clampdown on lorries is having on traffic.



They claim the get-tough policy on heavy goods vehicles could lead to more frustration for motorists and further serious accidents on the single-carriageway stretch through Northumberland.

Hauliers say they have been recently hit by a flurry of fixed penalty tickets, mostly for offences in the region of 45mph, and now say they will rigidly stick to the limit for vehicles of their type to avoid further expense.

And that, they say, will lead to greater tailbacks on the largely undualled 50-mile section between Morpeth and the Scottish Borders, where overtaking is often highly dangerous.

Hauliers claim an "unwritten agreement" with traffic officers has allowed them to reach speeds of 50mph to keep traffic moving safely along the notorious route.

Northumbria Police, however, says no such policy has ever existed or been sanctioned - and that the Government, not the police, is responsible for setting speed limits.

Alnwick trucker Alan Dodd has now challenged Northumbria Chief Constable Crispian Strachan to come out on the road with him and see the problems first hand.

His comments came after he and a colleague were both photographed while driving between 46 and 50mph on the A1 north of Alnwick. Both now face prosecution for speeding.

"I have already seen some almost suicidal overtaking on that road, and it will only get worse if HGV drivers are forced to slow down this far," said Mr Dodd, of Blakelaw Road. "This is an accident waiting to happen."

Alnwick haulage firm owner Richard Aynsley said his trucks had received five speeding tickets in one day - three from the same camera at Beal, on the single-carriageway A1 near Holy Island.

He said: "We know the law is set at 40mph, but I am not alone in thinking that it is safer for a lorry to travel at 50 on that stretch.

"The obvious answer is that the road should be dualled, which would allow us to do that legally."

"When you consider the technology contained in today's trucks, and the standards of engineering, they are far beyond what trucks were like when the 40mph limit was set.

"They are more than capable of driving safely at 50mph."

Other drivers who use the A1 regularly say they have noticed the road becoming slower in recent weeks.

Malcolm Dodds, northern area manager for the Road Haulage Association, said dualling the remaining single-lane sections had to be a priority.

A spokesman for Northumbria Police dismissed the "unwritten rule" theory - saying the law had always stood firm on the 40mph limit on the A1 single-carriageway.

He said: "We have not and do not operate an informal policy of allowing certain types of vehicle to travel contrary to the national speed regulations."
=================================

We have long been worried about this particular speed limit and maintain a web page about it. We wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and got no reply.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/hgv40.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I confess that I am responsible for this article in the press as well as many others. I decided to make a stand against the scamera policy and I wrote an article apologising to the car drivers who use the roads in Northumberland for the delays they would have to suffer because of a change of policy by Northumbria Police.

I had originally written to the Chief Constable and received no reply whatsoever, so I decided to inform as many people as possible of the tactics employed by the Police. Eventually there was a response from Chief Superintendent Pattison who denied there had been a change of policy. Surely the fact Northumbria Police joined the camera partnership at the time of these allegations is proof of a change in policy? Whilst I have always enjoyed a good relationship with the Police in the past I feel this situation is affecting confidence in the Police.

Following Chief Superintendent Pattisons attempt to silence me he was met with a barrage of letters disagreeing with his comments. His only contribution since then has been silence despite having been invited to respond. An arguement he had lost before he even put pen to paper I think.

More to come...

Alan

Hi Alan,

Yes, well done. I'm very well aware of your stirling efforts and will soon be publishing some of the material you sent me. I sent out the following PR from Safe Speed to over 700 journalists and editors at 5am yesterday.

PR117:
=======================================
Our Maddest Speed Limit

News: for immediate release

Many road users don't realise, but heavy goods vehicles are
subject to a national speed limit of just 40mph on single
carriageway roads. On B roads and unclassified roads, this limit
may sometimesl be sensible, but on good quality trunk routes it has
been widely, sensibly and safely ignored by our lorry drivers and
the by Police.

But now we have so called "safety camera partnerships" and they
are enforcing this bizarre and unnecessary speed limit with zeal
in some areas. Heavy goods vehicle drivers, who naturally require
their licences to earn a living, are ready to respond and reduce
speed to 40mph even though 56mph may be safe and appropriate.
This makes HGVs act as rolling roadblocks and causes significant
frustration for following drivers, many of whom are entitled to
travel at 60mph on the same routes.

Safe Speed is receiving plenty of correspondence from lorry
drivers concerned about new dangers created by observence of this
speed limit. For example, Alan Dodd, a professional lorry driver
commented: "For many years now the Traffic Police have, in the
interests of road safety, advised HGV drivers to travel up to
50mph to avoid creating a mobile traffic jam behind them. This
sensible approach usually deterred impatient and frustrated
drivers from attempting dangerous overtaking."

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said:
"There are many long haul routes on single carriageway roads
where it is safe and appropriate for heavy good vehicles to
travel at their limited top speed of 56mph. Forcing these drivers
to travel at 40mph has a very substantial economic cost, but
worse than that, we believe that overall danger is increased as
drivers of vehicles entitled to go faster become frustrated.
Frustration is well known as a cause of accidents, and any policy
that increases frustration is potentially extremely dangerous."

Paul continues: "It would be an entirely different matter if the
authorities had weighed up all the consequences and decided that
safety would be well served by increasing enforcement of this
particular speed limit. But no such investigation has taken
place, and they have no knowledge about the consequences of their
actions. How dare they!"

In May 2003, Safe Speed wrote to the Minister of Transport about
this matter but no reply has been received.

Paul continues: "And then there's the issue of criminalising our
most highly trained civilian drivers - some are clearly losing
their jobs for driving at safe and appropriate speeds. Kevin Lee
killed himself recently after being flashed by a speed camera."

Unfortunately this is just one of a whole series of modern so-
called road safety measures that have turned out to have deadly
side effects. Not many years ago, the UK lead the world in
effective road safety policy. That policy was based largely of
the skills and knowledge developed within the Police driver
training establishment centred at Hendon. It should come as no
surprise that the only country with a "centre of driving
excellence" also achieved the safest roads in the World. Now we
are bumbling in the dark and our road safety is the slowest
improving in Europe - just 12 years ago we were the fastest
improving.

<ends>



Notes for editors:
==================

Safe Speed page on the subject (includes our letter to Mr
Darling):
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/hgv40.html

You may quote freely from the page in any article based on (or
triggered by) this PR providing you acknowledge the source.

Link to Online Highway code confirming the 40mph national speed
limit:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103

BBC Story about the death of Kevin Lee:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derb ... 508471.stm

Safe Speed has been in contact with many organisations regarding
this matter. The following have expressed serious concern:
RHA, IAM, RoSPA, FTA, RAC Foundation. ABD.


One problem in publicising this story is the description of the
speed limit: "National speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on
single carriageway roads" We use the nickname: "HGV40" If you
feel you can use or establish the nickname, please go ahead.
======================================

I'm hoping to build up interest in the story nationally. You'll see I took the liberty of quoting Alan directly from one of his letters. I hope that's OK Alan, but I took an "executive decision" at 4:30 on Sunday morning!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

> Haulage firm owner Richard Aynsley said it is safer for
> a lorry to travel at 50 on that stretch. The technology contained
> in today's trucks are far beyond what trucks were like when the
> 40mph limit was set.

There are also a lot more of them competing for roughly the same road space, so the limit is still justified.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Sorry I can't agree that the 40mph limit is justified at all. We have a main trunk road with 3 different speed limits for cars, HGV's and PSV's. In effect all traffic is now limited to 40mph because there are no safe places to overtake the convoys of slow moving traffic caused by the recent enforcement of the scamera partnership. Even the Traffic Police Officers disagree with enforcing this limit because of the adverse effect it has on road safety. In my opinion the only reason this antiquated law still exists is because it has largely been ignored by Police and drivers in the past.

I don't agree that increased numbers of HGV's justifies the 40mph limit. There is plenty of road space for trucks and cars to travel alongside each other perfectly safely, all it needs is a little bit of common sense to take the place of financial gain.

Alan

Hi Paul

You may use anything in my letters you think would help restore some degree of normality to our roads. The situation we have at present is unacceptable. If there is any thing I feel may be relevant for you I'll forward it on to you.

Regards

Alan

Alan,

I agree that the reason this law still exists is because it has been ignored in the past. Now it isn't being ignored, and it has come out that the law is wrong and should be changed - that is a good thing that was not apparent until the law was enforced.

If the 'ideal' speed limit for haulage traffic really is 50 mph, but it is limited to 40 mph by law, then that is what you should campaign for, not a scamera rebellion.

I still think that more haulage traffic makes the road less safe, and the limit less unjustified, and I don't get what you mean in your last words about financial gain - surely by fining offenders, it is the tax payers who win?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I don't understand this point. It's made frequently, but it's always lost on me.

Everything worked fine until the camera partnerships stuck their oar in. Now the thing that has changed is enforcement practice. Why can't we just go back to the previous enforcement practice? Why should we have to change the law?

Also bear in mind, that the law is actually useful and sensible on some more minor national speed limit roads. It's on trunk routes that it's dangerous.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Oh yes, I forgot, slower speeds are safer! How could I have forgotten that speed kills! We must slow those nasty motorists down in their killing machines!

...

It seems you have either missed one of Safe Speed's major points, or you have deliberately ignored it.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Hi Basingwerk

I'm pleased you agree the speed limit should be changed and I can assure you I am actively campaigning for this happen. I have met with my MP and I am keeping him informed of further devlopments in the area.

I have to disagree with your comments regarding "more haulage traffic makes the road less safe". I would like to see more movement of freight by means such as air and rail but this is not an option currently availible. I think I should also add drivers of HGV's are trained to a very high standard and their concentration on given road conditions at any time contributes to a good road safety record. Obviously I am not claiming all drivers of a particular driving catagory achieve the same high standard, there are inexperienced, careless and inconsiderate drivers in all driving groups, although I do think you have missed my point about other motorists being inconvenienced by a limit which is unjustified.

I apologise if I was unclear in my reference to financial gain but I can assure you the tax payers do not win as you assume. If you would care to study the informative article on the hypothecation scheme which appears elsewhere on the safespeed website I think the true meaning of "Policing for profit" comes to light.

Regards

Alan

Paul,


Coppers are supposed to get people who break the law. If the law is OK, you have nothing to grumble about. If the law is wrong, then grumble about it and get it changed.

On the other hand, maybe there should be some discretion. A person who only breaks the law a little bit should be OK. As far as I know, the cameras have instrument tolerance margins but that's not the same thing.

So who decided on the enforcement practice, and how did they tell you what the 'real' limit was, rather than the official one?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hi Alan,



I don't necessarily agree that the speed limit should be changed. I think that the enforcement practise of turning a blind eye to the limit has masked the actual problem. Now that it is enforced fully, you are able to judge that the limit is too low. This may not have happened before.

Whether or not the speed limit should be changed is a political matter, and many people would have different views on that.

Basingwerk

_________________
I stole this .sig

Mike, if you think you can ignore the speed limit, then surely I can ignore one of Safe Speed's major points!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hi basingwerk

I can assure you it is not just my opinion that the 40mph law should be changed, it is the opinion of all HGV drivers who have contacted me along with all the members of the public who have taken the time to write to the local press. It is noticable there has not been one single letter of suport for the change of policy by the Police to enforce laws which in the past were treated with descretion.

As you correctly state the speed limit is a political matter and it is being addressed by MP's at the present time. There has been a great deal of suport from the Traffic Officers in Northumberland to have the limit raised to 50mph, do you feel their opinion is credible?

I think your own opinion of this archaic law would change if you were to follow one of these slow moving convoys of traffic on a straight stretch of road and witness some of the desperate overtaking attempts caused by frustration. Many car drivers cannot understand why a truck is sitting at 40mph with a clear road in front. They are aware a car is allowed to travel at 60mph and mistakenly assume trucks can do the same.

If there were a history of speed related accidents caused by HGV's travelling at over 40mph then I would concede the limit serves a purpose. There has been no such accidents in this area so I fail to see why the scamera partnership are targetting motorists which the Traffic Police did not. The only reason that I can understand is one of financial gain. With a target of £480 000 per month to acheive they are interested in nothing other than funding their operation.

I wonder how the results in this "road safety" drive will be measured. Will it be deemed a success because of all the revenue collected or will it be considered a failure because of the increasing numbers of motorists speeding?

Alan

Please point out to me where I said I think I can ignore the speed limit.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

The problem with HGVs and large LGVs is that they transfer all of their speed to whatever they hit in an accident.
i.e. A car travelling at 40mph would transfer about 23mph to a stationary object. A heavy LGV/HGV will transfer 40mph when impacting at 40mph.
Heavier vehicle, more damage, more death.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Ignoring the fact that it is momentum not speed that matters....

By your reckoning: A car travelling at 60mph overtaking a lorry at 40mph colliding with a lorry travelling in the opposite direction, also travelling at 40mph is going to be a 100mph impact on the car?

And that is a much more likely accident (if the 40 limit is enforced) than a 60mph lorry colliding with a stationary car (if it is not).

A car travelling at 40mph would 'transfer about 23mph to a stationary object'? You mean, it would cause said stationary object to start to move at 23mph? That's almost entirely dependent upon the mass of the object it hits, and the coefficient of restitution between the car and the object. I think it's fair to say that in general a lorry will transfer more energy and momentum to a stationary object than a car will to the same object, but I don't see where your 23mph claim comes from!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Sorry I don't understand the figures given from championman regarding transfer of speed. Where do they come from?

Driver behaviour and education has more of an effect on road safety than unrealistic speed limits and the accident rate caused by HGV's is significantly lower than any other group of drivers.

It is calculated from the average mass of the vehicle. The heavier the vehicle the more speed is transferred to the struck object.


Where I come from HGVs are involved in 2% of all accidents but account for more than 40% of fatalities.
Now parhaps that is something to do with the transfer of energy to the said struck object!

_________________
It's Champion Man