Ins and outs of Armitage
Page 28
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SIR ARTHUR ARMITAGE will long be remembered as the man who recommended 44-tonners for Britain's roads, but his report is much more complex, and many of its other recommendations may well have more farreaching effects on the way road hauliers operate.
In London this week, he said: "This is a practical report in which I and qualified independent assessors have studied all major aspects of the problem. Our recommendations are necessary on economic grounds. They would bring big cost savings.
"The recommendations give greatly increased protection to the environment and to the public. I believe that their adoption would serve the public interest.
"We have the chance to make major economic savings, and at the same time improving the environment and the effect of lorries on people. We should take it," he concluded.
The report recognises that few people actually like lorries, and refers to the "generalised sense of fear and apprehension" which they create. But it goes on to say that rash action would be unwise. "It would be foolish to sacrifice a large part of the clear economic benefits of lorries for the sake of marginal environmental improvements to which few attach any significant value."
Weights and dimensions The report proposes a 10.5tonne axle weight for a single driving axle, a 10.17-tonne limit for other single axles, the present limits in the Construction and Use regulations for tandem axles, and a 22.5-tonne limit for tri-axles with an overall spacing of 2.7m or more. There would be lower limits for closer spaced axles.
Gross weights would be set at 34 tonnes for four-axle artic and drawbar outfits, at 38 tonnes for five-axle artics with two axle tractive units, at 40 tonnes for five-axle antics with three-axle tractive units and five-axle drawbar outfits, and at 44 tonnes for six-axle artics (three axle tractive unit) and drawbar outfits.
There should be no increase in the size of lorries, except to lengthen tractive units by 0.5m to give a 15.5m length limit for articulated lorries. This will cut out the problem created by technically overlength vehicles which sometimes are prosecuted at present, and, according to the report, also is sufficient to accommodate additional sound insulation. But semi-trailers should remain limited to 12.2m.
Sir Arthur does accept that there is a chance of drawbar combinations becoming more popular if weights are increased, but his view is that there will not be a big switch away from articulated lorries. He points out that, while they are longer, they are also more manoeuvrable in built-up areas, and represent no greater environmental risk. But he does say that the Department of Transport should monitor their use.
In this connection, the report accepts a plea from the Showmen's Guild for a 22m length limit exemption so that their goods vehicles can tow caravans used as living accommodation. But, otherwise, the drawbar length limit should stay at 18m.
The report calls for the introduction of a 4.2m height limit, saying that all other EEC states, except France and Ireland, operate a 4m limit. It suggests a 4.6m limit for special lorries, such as those designed to carry glass.
Noise The present Government commitment to reduce lorry noise from 91dB(A) to 88dB(A) for 147kW (200bhp) or over engines, and from 89d B(A) to 86dB(A) for smaller vehicles is noted by the report, but it says an early effort should be made to reduce this further, to 80d13{A}. This already is an EEC goal, and Sir Arthur says this should be achieved by Britain by 1990 at the latest.
He points to the pre-production Foden/Rolls Royce Quiet Heavy Vehicle as an example of what can be achieved, and also mentions the quieter noise emission of the Leyland Roadtrain.
Lorry safety Vigorous progress in improving lorry safety is recommended, and Sir Arthur says that the £30m extra cost of fitting front and rear under-run bumpers and cycle guards on the sides of lorries would be justified in terms of the lives saved in accidents each year. He says such devices should be mandatory on all new lorries.
In line with the rate of development in braking technology, there should be progressive reductions in maximum stopping distances for lorries, says the report, and it suggests the Government should seek more stringent braking standards through the EEC.
Overloading
The report welcomes the increased importance which the Department of Transport is placing on dynamic axle weighing, and says it hopes that the number of checks will be increased. It adds: "We also recommend that the increased effort should be concentrated on those points where it will be most effective in catching foreign lorries, whose record of overloading is so bad."
And, to strengthen the enforcement measures, it says there is a good case for fines being raised to a level which del ers operators from breaking th new gross weight limits. It see merits in a system of fixed pE nalties, providing they are higi enough.
Speed limits Sir Arthur recommends an in crease in speed limits to 5Ornp1 on dual carriageways on whie other vehicles may run a 70mph.
The report accepts that ther is a danger from spray o motorways, but feels that, in ba weather, lorries should b subject to the same advisor speed limits as other vehicles.
Taxation Here, the report has slippe into the same gear as that a ready engaged by the Goverr ment. It says that all lorriE should meet their full track costs, as calculated by DTp, and urges the Government to act quickly in redressing the present imbalance whereby the lightest vehicles subsidise the heaviest. This would raise the vehicle excise duty on existing 32.5-tonners by E800 a year.
It says that this will make matters worse for the five-axle 32.5 tonners which already contribute more in tax than their allocated track costs, but says this is an acceptable price to pay to correct the position affecting the much larger number of underpaying four-axle units.
Transfer to rail The report rejects any idea of directing goods to go by rail instead of road, but proposes increases both in the scope and value of Section 8 grants issued under the 1974 Railway Act. These at present are paid to British Rail customers to meet the cost of private sidings which Lake traffic away from the roads, where there is environmental benefit as a result.
Sir Arthur says these should be increased from 50 per cent to 60 per cent in most cases, and to BO per cent in special cases. He also says it is unfair that Freightliner should have lost its entitlement to Section 8 grants when it was transferred from National Freight to BR, and says that the same benefits should apply to Sealink.
While canals, coastal shipping and pipelines are given only scant treatment by the report, it does recommend that Section 8type grants be provided where they also take traffic away from the roads. Initial feeling in the industry is, though, that these modes are more likely to take traffic from BR.
Lorry restrictions The report rejects any suggestion of the Government having overseeing powers on lorry routeing, saying that local authorities are the only organisations competent to make such decisions. It says that the DTp should keep a watching brief over bigger schemes on the scale of the Windsor Cordon, but generally there is a vote of confidence in favour of the local authorities' handling of lorry routeing.
It does warn, though, against the danger to the national interest if lorry bans result in hauliers being faced with large additional costs, and says the DTp should collect and publish details of the costs imposed by each scheme so as to judge the pattern of what is happening nationally.
In order to make lorry bans more enforceable, the report suggests that each vehicle displays a 121n roundel showing its gross weight, and a similar sign should appear inside the cab to remind the driver.
Parking The report lays stress on the danger and annoyance caused by lorries parked on roads, and says that, where adequate depot space exists, lorries should be kept there, and not outside drivers' homes. And it says any nuisance which arises from infringement of this requirement should lead to action by a Licensing Authority.
It rejects the haulage industry's claim that the public sector should finance off-street parking. It welcomes local authorities' valuable contributions made by the provision of lorry parks, but says: "It is not convincing to argue that the fragmentation of the haulage industry is sufficient reason for the public sector to do their job for them.
"If the road haulage industry is incapable of individual or collective action in order to provide away-from-base parking needed after account is taken of public provision, it will have to face the fact that increasingly its lorries will have nowhere to go."
Acknowledging that there is a wide gap between the £10 which motorway service areas consider an economic charge for overnight parking and the £2.50 which the Road Haulage Association says its members are prepared to pay, the report sees little likelihood of much progress being made in that area. It says the Government should look sympathetically at operators' needs on service areas, but says the haulage industry should not be subsidised.
Operator licensing This is the area in which Armitage takes in the main Foster Committee recommendations which have lain on ice since they were published almost two years ago.
He wants Licensing Authorities' powers to be extended to consider the environmental implications of the development of a lorry depot, and to reject a licence application where greater use of an operating centre would cause environmental problems.
And he proposes that the definition of an operating centre be