1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Weighing up the long and the short of it
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I THINK IT'S A real shame that Germany has ruled out using longer, heavier vehicles (LHVs) as I believe their introduction over there could have helped their cause over here.
It seems that people are worried about safety and the weight on bridges. But surely bridges are designed to take the weight of 44-tonners stood back to back. If the vehicle is longer and proportionately heavier, how is this any different?
Also, people seem to be under the impression that they will have these vehicles passing by their front door delivering to corner shops.This would not be the case they would stick to motorways, delivering to massive distribution centres-thereby taking a number of current artics off the road.
You have recently published comments from the Freight on Rail people, who claim that most of the country doesn't want LHVs. I'd be interested to know what questions they asked. Probably something along the lines of-do you want more dangerous, congestion-causing and polluting trucks on the road?".
In my opinion, their main motive is competition.
Douglas McCloud Bursledon, Hampshire