- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
50mph_sign_(licensed_on_Wikimedia_by_DeFacto_under_CC-BY-SA_3.0)Lorry speed limit increase will kill cyclists, says Department for Transport
A government decision announced last week to raise the speed limit for lorries on single carriageway rural roads from 40 miles an hour to 50 miles an hour has been criticised by the opposition and by cycling organisations – and even the Government’s own impact assessment suggests casualties could rise by between 10 and 20 per cent.
Announcing the change in the speed limit, which is due to come into force next year, transport minister Claire Perry insisted that the higher speed limit would “cut dangerous overtaking by motorists seeking to pass slower-moving lorries in front of them", reports The Guardian.
But an impact assessment carried out by the Department for Transport (DfT) says that the higher speed limit for HGVs would lead to two or three additional fatal road traffic incidents a year and between four and nine serious ones.
Turning to whether the change would reduce the amount of dangerous overtaking, the authors said it could be a benefit but they were unable to put a figure on it "because we do not have sufficient confidence that it would occur," adding, "while overtaking manoeuvres may become less likely, they would also be performed at higher speeds and so could become more dangerous".
The assessment added that three quarters of lorry drivers are thought to break the speed limit regularly when driving on roads without speed cameras.
The DfT insisted it had examined the issue in detail before deciding to increase the speed limit, with a spokesman saying: "Road safety is a key priority and we studied both the potential for increased risk and for improved safety due to less risky overtaking before making our decision.
“We are determined to improve safety – for instance, by encouraging local authorities to lower speed limits on roads where needed, better procedures to deal with HGV drivers who drive tired, and bringing in a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving."
But shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh accused the government of putting the lives of vulnerable road users at risk.
She said: "The government has pledged to review the safety of rural roads, but these higher speed limits will make them much less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Ministers need to bring forward evidence before pushing ahead with these potentially dangerous speed increases."
Responding to a government claim that the new speed limit would save the haulage sector some £11 million a year, she added: "The main impact on the freight industry is that the government has failed to tackle the strategic road network, cancelling projects to improve roads and cutting building and maintenance budgets."
British Cycling described the move as “staggering,” while Penny Knight, head of the cycling team at the law firm Leigh Day, criticised the government for putting financial interests over people’s safety.
“It is extraordinary that the cost savings to the haulage industry are being cited as the reasons for making our roads more unsafe for all road users, not just cyclists,” she said. “Any cost savings to an industry are not worth the deaths that will result from this legislation."
Referring to the Commonwealth Games, she added: “The timing of this announcement couldn’t be worse, just when we celebrate cycling as one of our key sporting events as a nation, the Government ensures that the roads on which many of our champions train are made more unsafe."
Chris Peck, policy co-ordinator at national cyclist’s organisation CTC, pointed out that the roads where lorries will soon be permitted to travel faster than they can at the moment are the very ones that already account for a high proportion of cycling casualties.
He said: "The risk of cycling on rural single-carriageway roads is over 20 times greater than on minor urban roads, and several cyclists are killed each year – hit behind by lorries on these roads – a risk which will only increase as lorries are allowed to go faster.
“CTC believes that lorries should only be allowed to drive at higher speeds on properly engineered major roads, where adequate parallel cycling facilities exist," he added.
It also seems likely that increasing the HGV speed limits on these roads will increase the number of lorries using them, a factor that does not seem to have been accounted for in the DfT's calculations.
Drivers using GPS navigation will be more likely to be directed down single-carriageway roads by algorithms designed to shorten journey time if those roads become nominally faster.
News of the change to the speed limit was however welcomed by the Road Haulage Association (RHA) which said: "This evidence-based decision by ministers will be strongly welcomed by hauliers and their drivers. The current limit is long out-of-date and the frustration it generates causes unnecessary road safety risks."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- grasen 1 sec ago
Chinese just make what is on order. Soul-less is the designers fault....
- OldRidgeback 4 min 5 sec ago
He looks a bit like Paul Wicker the tall vicar from Viz. He's about as credible too.
- chrisonabike 5 min 17 sec ago
Seems sensible to me....
- Backladder 6 min 43 sec ago
No shoes should be ruined by a bit of moisture, not fit for purpose, take them back to the shop!
- brooksby 1 hour 18 min ago
Laura Laker is in Bristol today - she's doing a meet'n'greet/talk about her book at Stanfords (the travel bookshop in the Old City) tonight.
- Mr Hoopdriver 1 hour 20 min ago
Apparently we're paying more tax now than ever. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low which is worrying...
- arckuk 1 hour 47 min ago
I think a lot of this would be fairly inconsequential - I don't really care hugely whether as a cyclist I am perceived poorly - but for the fact...
- Hirsute 2 hours 15 min ago
Is it something to do with Nye Bevan?
- check12 2 hours 36 min ago
Post truth cycling product descriptions, aero socks are aero socks because of ribs etc tripping airflow to enable it to stay attached longer and...
- Fursty Ferret 3 hours 1 min ago
Or just walk away - they're private contractors and any attempt to detain you would be illegal. Their camera footage can be used *against* them as...
Add new comment
57 comments
What matter are a few smashed up bodies when an industry can save pennies?
British politicians are in the main venal, shortsighted, and kept in corporate pockets.
Which is what they seem to want.
The vast majority of HGVs are travelling faster than 40mph on these roads already most going to the restricters 56mph. So I really don't think this would make any difference at all. My biggest concern with this is car drivers would use this as an excuse to overtake even fast than they do now ie 70+ Mph. I honestly feel more nervous about the cars driving past me at what ever speed they like as apose to the HGVs which are only really going 56mph.
Even more hilarious, Claire Perry lists "cycling with my family" as one of her pastimes.
http://claireperry.org.uk/about-me/claire%27s-biography
Ex banker with no transport knowledge now in charge of UK Transport policy. Depressing....
Translation: "I've taken the kids to Center Parcs."
'But an impact assessment carried out by the Department for Transport (DfT) says that the higher speed limit for HGVs would lead to two or three additional fatal road traffic incidents a year and between four and nine serious ones.'
Why let the facts get in the way of profit mongering and whoreing themselves for their mates in big business?
If its good enough for Owen Fucking Paterson its good enough for every other dirty corrupt government dept
Fuck all this shit,theres no point bothering anymore,its a waste of fucking time,might aswell ride in front of the next fucking HGV and get it over with
its all fucked
Legal Speed Limit - What the Law says is the maximum speed for the road in question.
Real Speed Limit - What motorists think is acceptable for the road in question. Often "How far can I push it before getting a tug from the police.
There is a huge difference between what the 'legal' speed limit is and what the 'real' speed limit is perceived to be by motorists.
As a rough estimate the 'real' speed limit tends to be 'legal' speed plus 10. For example legal 30mph = real 40mph, legal 70mph = real 80mph.
The problem is not so much the fact that the speed limit is being increased but the fact that a high percentage of motorists regard any speed limit as a goal rather than a maximum in good conditions.
I mostly agree, except that the speed most motorists think is acceptable is often unrelated to the legal limit, more their own perception of danger. I don't believe that most HGVs would drive any faster than they do now regardless of what the limit is. Some of the arguments on here, if taken to their logical extreme, seem to suggest that if the speed limit for HGVs was 90mph that they would drive at 100mph. Clearly untrue and there would be a lot of big holes in hedges!
The only HGVs I've noticed consistently sticking to 40mph are Tesco and Sainsburys, and I suspect their drivers are better trained (read "their tachos get looked at") than average. If all HGVs DID do 40mph then we'd be back to the widespread dangerous overtaking scenario described by Mixte Rider: "The number of near misses I saw from frustrated motorists trying to overtake was incredible."
A little bit of goggling reveals the conservatives recently hosted a bash at which the usual billionaire arms, oil and finance magnates paid thousands to sit near government ministers.
The transport minister even had his own table of transport industry leaders who paid upwards of £12000 each to the conservative party to attend the event.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/07/01/access-all-ministers-bil...
People on bicycles were not represented.
UK politicians are no more than lackeys for lobby groups, this lot that are in at the moment especially so.
I wonder how much individuals with financial interests in the transport industry contribute to the conservative party coffers?
What a short-sighted decision
More bonkers legislation from this anti-cycling, pro-car, government.
The law change is based on no evidence what so ever that it will reduce "dangerous overtaking" manouvers.
It will lead to more serious accidents, and not just for cyclists. If lorries already flout the 40mph rule, then they will also flout the 50mph rule and end up doing close to 60mph on narrow country roads.
Inevitably the number of very serious collisions is going to go up.
Once again the haulage lobby "wins" for no real gain, either economic or safety.
So incredibly stupid, what is Claire Perry thinking??
If lorries regularly speed, how about a crack down on speeding?
She's not.
The change is just moronic all-round and these sorts of decisions need to be taken out of the hands of parliament/government.
If you hadn't already realised it this government only cares about car drivers and hauliers as transport solutions. And if you aren't already politically active, you need to get volunteering for the political parties that do care about safe and sustainable transport.
Given that the Green Party, at least in Scotland, are obsessed by electric cars, can you tell me which party you have in mind, because I cannot see one?
Yet another government decision that has been taken whilst choosing to ignore inconvenient facts, even when put forward by their own civil servants.
Yes about time. The same green anti driver civil servants have been identified as being in post too long. At long last politicians are starting to get it.
First find me a lorry that sticks to the 40 limit when there are no cameras about.
Outrageous decision, pointless and stupid. The dubious £11 million benefit to the hauliers is a tiny, tiny amount of money for a market that is worth billions. And as #Sevenfold points out, when mitigated against the cost of serious "accidents", it's virtually nothing.
If this change really does divert more lorries onto smaller roads, that meaningless saving will be dwarfed by the additional surface damage to done to those roads.
Based on the Government's own 2011 figures
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
the cost of a fatal RTC is £1686532 & a serious RTC is £189519. Using the 'worst-case' higher numbers (3 fatal, 9 serious) & assuming only a single person (cyclist or pedestrian) is impacted by the incident, the cost is £6765267. Add say 5% for inflation for 3 years (2011 - 2014), & we are at in excess of £7 million. Saving to the road haulage industry, (a fine, upstanding bunch based on the recent evidence that a significant proportion of vehicles are not roadworthy) is £11m, cost to the nation £7.1m...
Add to this the cost of increased road damage... latest figures show that the subsidy for HGVs using UK roads is a staggering £5 billion (!) http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/new-research-britain%E2%80%99s-lorries...
"Road damage from the heaviest lorries is estimated to be 150,000 times higher than for a typical car"
That £11m doesnt look like such a saving after all.
Not to mention increased fuel costs...
It would make a lot more sense to lower the national speed limit for all other motor vehicles from 60 to 50 on single carriageways.
even 50 is still too fast for these rural roads.
Here's an existing 50 mph rural road...
http://goo.gl/maps/dyK2z
I consider 50 mph to still be too fast for it... If HGV's are allowed to do 50 MPH along here, they'll start using it as a rat run to get to the M5...
|Is it just me or is Google going bananas with its blurring out? When I clicked the link I got a close-up of the road sign with A4019 blurred out; when I clicked backwards a step, the road sign is clear (that's how I know what it said) but the 50 mph sign is blurred. What does it think it is? A face? A number plate? Why doesn't it blur out all speed signs?
My parents have a friend who used to be a road engineer. He even said that most rural roads are not built to be driven at 60 mph.
Lowering the speed to 50 mph on twisting rural roads would a lot more sense. However, this is the government. If they don't listen to their own impact surveys from their own department's there is no hope!
Pages