• I see that the Transport Minister is looking at
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
front under-run protection for artics. I see that the reason quoted for this is "road safety" and the saving of countless lives.
Now I'm all for road safety and for lives, (especially mine), but I get a bit fed up with all the self-appointed experts jumping on the bandwagon every time the Department of Transport comes up with a plan.
Dim-dip headlights (countless lives), high-intensity rear lights (countless lives), top-speed governors (countless lives), extra HGV marker lights (80 lives a year) and so on.
Recently, figures were published showing a decrease in road deaths. Mr Rifkind didn't actually claim the credit for these (to do so would have stretched his credibility considering his length of tenure at the ministry), but many reasons were put forward as to the cause, because in a period where cars and HGVs have all become faster, road deaths have gone down. This goes against the experts' view, because speed means road casualties to them regardless of the circumstances.
I would suggest that the real reason for the decrease is better car design (crumple zones and so on) and the increased use of seat belts.
The Department of Transport is the Government, and with a large majority in Parliament, it can introduce any legislation it chooses. It doesn't really have to justify it, but of course, this is a democracy, so any plan for our industry is usually foisted on us "in the interests of road safety".
Dim-dip — abandoned because it was a silly idea. High intensity rear lights — a big nuisance, because people use them in the wrong circumstances, and forget to switch them off. Extra marker lights on HGVs — too early to say what effect these will have apart from extra cost to the industry, and of course, topspeed governors. I accept that we need to obey the law and all responsible operators do so, but I do not accept that the freight industry needs the extra expense of governors to uphold the law. Tachograph legislation is adequate, if the penalties of disqualification, (both of companies' 0-licences and drivers' HGV licences) are rigorously applied regardless of who the offender is.
Still I don't think that 60mph speed limiters will have much effect on road safety, nor will it make the nation rich because of fuel savings. It's all a bit of a non-event, apart from the extra headache of maintaining them.
But wait a minute, we are now told that it is highly likely that we will be restricted to 50mph. I hope this does not happen, because apart from the extra cost, no one really knows what the effect of every HGV travelling at this speed on our congested motorways will have. The self-appointed and very vocal experts see Utopia in this plan.
I, like the FTA, foresee disaster. It is one thing to make artics look like Christmas trees and claim life saving. But what is proposed is not suitable for our traffic conditions and, far from countless lives being saved, I'm afraid the opposite is likely to occur.
It's a strange thing that Britain's two most efficient and necessary industries are so unloved by the people and politicians alike. Both farming and freight get a poor press and are subject to political interference on a grand scale. This is
probably our own fault; we have been too busy getting on with the job. We should have been blowing our own trumpets about what we actually do, and protecting our necessary interests from detractors and "experts". We all abhor the French farmers' actions, but I must admit to a tiny bit of admiration for their determination — at least they are making a fight of it. Let's take a leaf out of their book; united we are a force to be reckoned with. Bullies hardly ever pick on well-protected and determined foes.
EJ Chapman, Leeds.