Poll : HGV/PSV speed limits
David B
speed limit for coaches on motorways should decrease (to bring them in line
with HGVs), remain the same, or increase. This follows a thread from
trucknet.uk
http://www.trucknetuk.com/bbsuk/Forum1/HTML/002524.html
Many thanks.
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
Cast_Iron
> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62
> mph (100 km/h) speed limit for coaches on motorways should
> decrease (to bring them in line with HGVs), remain the
> same, or increase. This follows a thread from trucknet.uk
>
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/bbsuk/Forum1/HTML/002524.html
>
> Many thanks.
Coaches should be allowed to travel at the same speed as cars, they are
carrying people many of whom would prefer not to be on the coach any longer
than possible. Coaches and buses also have the best safety record of all
road based transport.
angie
"Cast_Iron" <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfvv2h$g6a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
so this question is a moot point!
Cast_Iron
The discussion appears to be about long distance touring coaches rather than
vehicles used on stage carriage work.
Conor
@hotmail.com says...
> Coaches should be allowed to travel at the same speed as cars, they are
> carrying people many of whom would prefer not to be on the coach any longer
> than possible. Coaches and buses also have the best safety record of all
> road based transport.
>
Madness. You want a 9-10 tonne vehicle to do 70 MPH carrying THE MOST
precious cargo of all? If people don't like being on a coach for a long
period of time perhaps they should fly instead. Coach=long journey time
so they accept this when they book.
--
________________________
Conor Turton
conor_...@hotmail.com
ICQ:31909763
________________________
Conor
an...@lostindeepspace.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Most buses that I drive are not capable of 50mph, let alone exceeding 60mph,
> so this question is a moot point!
>
Modern touring coaches are far removed from 1960-70's buses.
Cast_Iron
> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62
>> mph (100 km/h) speed limit for coaches on motorways should
>> decrease (to bring them in line with HGVs), remain the
>> same, or increase.
>
> be confined
> to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
Seems like you've already locked yourself away, in you little tin box.
Cast_Iron
> In article <bfvv2h$g6a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> CastIron_881 @hotmail.com says...
>
>> Coaches should be allowed to travel at the same speed as
>> cars, they are carrying people many of whom would prefer
>> not to be on the coach any longer than possible. Coaches
>> and buses also have the best safety record of all road
>> based transport.
>>
> Madness. You want a 9-10 tonne vehicle to do 70 MPH
> carrying THE MOST precious cargo of all? If people don't
> like being on a coach for a long period of time perhaps
> they should fly instead. Coach=long journey time
> so they accept this when they book.
Conor, have you ever been involved in coaching?
Ivor Jones
"angie" <an...@lostindeepspace.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bg07el$oiv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Most of ours can't make it past 40..! Maybe 50 downhill with a following
wind :-))
I remember a few years ago when we took delivery of some Volvo B7L's. They
had been driven down from Plaxton's in Wigan to us in Birmingham, the
drivers were knackered when they got here, 45 mph flat out down the
motorway ;-)
Ivor
Cast_Iron
> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62
> mph (100 km/h) speed limit for coaches on motorways should
> decrease (to bring them in line with HGVs), remain the
> same, or increase. This follows a thread from trucknet.uk
>
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/bbsuk/Forum1/HTML/002524.html
>
> Many thanks.
The maximum speed for coaches is 70mph. In 1995 or thereabouts an EU
directive came into force saying that a coach registered after 1984 (I think
it was) should be limited to 100kph.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103
Gavin MAYNARD
However all lorries etc should be banned from using the 2nd lane. Therefore
removing the need for lorries to keep trying to overtake each other at
painfully slow paces. Therefore freeing up the 2nd & 3rd lane for normal
motorists.
This should in turn alleviate some of the congestion on the UK's motorways.
At one point, I know that the Government were considering this idea. However
I never managed to find out their results on this.
"David B" <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bfv45u$vvg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Ivor Jones" <this.acc...@valid.inv> wrote in message
news:bg0jau$1qc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
From the brochure on the Volvo B7L (it was at www.volvo.com) all vehicles
have a factory fitted speed limiter set at either 70, 80 or 90 km/h (thats
43/50/56mph) ... It seems your batch has the lowest setting.
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Steve Firth" <usen...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fyrao4.1dk3ujavj2pcxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to know from you all whether the present 62 mph (100 km/h)
> > speed limit for coaches on motorways should decrease (to bring them in
line
> > with HGVs), remain the same, or increase.
>
> Decrease obviously and all trucks buses and coaches should be confined
> to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
>
And obviously the drivers of such vehicles are so incompetent and badly
trained that this limitation should include their own private vehicles as
well. Yes!!! Some of us do own and drive our own cars just like you!
PeterE
> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62 mph (100
> km/h) speed limit for coaches on motorways should decrease (to bring
> them in line with HGVs), remain the same, or increase. This follows a
> thread from trucknet.uk
As coaches are legally allowed to do 70 on UK motorways then I see no reason
why their speed limiters shouldn't be set at 110 kph (68 mph) rather than
100 kph.
Having yet another class of vehicles with 90 kph limiters would make the
current problems of bunching and protracted overtaking even worse.
--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Steve Firth" <usen...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fyrajr.v6b10ztvhk7xN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Coaches should be allowed to travel at the same speed as cars, they are
> > carrying people many of whom
>
> Are not wearing seatbelts, nor are coaches fitted with even minimal
> safety features common in cars such as airbags or crumple zones.
>
A coach has seat belts the wearing of which will be made compulsory very
soon for all passengers. Also they are very crashworthy. Crumple zones? Ha,
in a crash between a bus/coach and a car - well lets just say, airbags and
crumple zones on the car won't help much!
> > would prefer not to be on the coach any longer
> > than possible.
>
> So reform the coach routes. Here's a hint to the coach operators the
> shortest distance from Hastings to Brighton is not via South Mimms.
>
Nothing wrong with coach routes. Passenger concerned on the documentary was
warned there was no direct service beween Hastings and Brighton.
> > Coaches and buses also have the best safety record of all
> > road based transport.
>
> You should be locked up somewhere. In a room wih padded walls.
>
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/
dft_transstats_022248.pdf
In 2002 1747 car users were killed, 16981 were seriously injured and 178697
were slightly injured, a total of 197425.
In the same year on bus and coaches, 19 were killed, 532 were seriously
injured, 8454 were slightly injured for a grand total of 9005.
I'd say travelling by bus/coach was safer :)
> --
> "I have come up with a sure-fire concept for a hit television show,
> which would be called `A Live Celebrity Gets Eaten by a Shark'."
> -- Dave Barry, "The Wonders of Sharks on TV"
Cast_Iron
> PSV vehicles should be increased to 65 mph.
>
> However all lorries etc should be banned from using the 2nd
> lane. Therefore removing the need for lorries to keep
> trying to overtake each other at painfully slow paces.
> Therefore freeing up the 2nd & 3rd lane for normal
> motorists.
Given that motorways were built for freight traffic, along with every other
form of transport, why should lorries get out of the way of cars?
PeterE
>
> Given that motorways were built for freight traffic, along with every
> other form of transport, why should lorries get out of the way of
> cars?
Common courtesy, a concept you don't seem to understand.
Dave
>A coach has seat belts the wearing of which will be made compulsory very
>soon for all passengers. Also they are very crashworthy. Crumple zones? Ha,
>in a crash between a bus/coach and a car - well lets just say, airbags and
>crumple zones on the car won't help much!
But what about (say) a crash between a coach and an HGV?
--
Dave
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Steve Firth" <usen...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fyrren.gu4lmb1az4hkcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > And obviously the drivers of such vehicles are so incompetent and badly
> > trained that this limitation should include their own private vehicles
as
> > well. Yes!!! Some of us do own and drive our own cars just like you!
>
> You can wipe the drool off your keyboard now.
>
You've been around on the usenet groups as long as I have. Do your postings
serve any purpose other than attempting to ridicule and put down people?
Quite sad really.
Cast_Iron
>>> even minimal safety features common in cars such as
>>> airbags or crumple zones.
>>>
>>
>> A coach has seat belts the wearing of which will be made
>> compulsory very soon for all passengers. Also they are
>> very crashworthy. Crumple zones? Ha, in a crash between a
>> bus/coach and a car - well lets just say, airbags and
>> crumple zones on the car won't help much!
>
> coach crashes
> appears to be poor.
>
>>>> would prefer not to be on the coach any longer
>>>> than possible.
>>>
>>> So reform the coach routes. Here's a hint to the coach
>>> operators the shortest distance from Hastings to Brighton
>>> is not via South Mimms.
>>>
>> Nothing wrong with coach routes. Passenger concerned on
>> the documentary was warned there was no direct service
>> beween Hastings and Brighton.
>
Hasting and Brighton adjacent huh? Seem like your geography is as good as
your understanding of the world at large, crap.
Cast_Iron
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given that motorways were built for freight traffic, along
>> with every other form of transport, why should lorries get
>> out of the way of cars?
>
> Common courtesy, a concept you don't seem to understand.
Given that cars have a significantly better power to weight ratio and
therefore better acceleration than a fully loaded lorry then surely it
courtesy for cars to give give space to lorries, especially as most cars
don't need to be there.
You wouldn't know about my standards of courtesy since you don't have the
intelligence to work out what is and is not.
Cast_Iron
What about it?
Dave
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/
>> dft_transstats_022248.pdf
>>
>> In 2002 1747 car users were killed, 16981 were seriously injured and 178697
>> were slightly injured, a total of 197425.
>>
>> In the same year on bus and coaches, 19 were killed, 532 were seriously
>> injured, 8454 were slightly injured for a grand total of 9005.
>>
>> I'd say travelling by bus/coach was safer :)
>
It might be a better comparison to look at casualties as a proportion of
distance travelled. DfT doesn't seem to have 2002 figures available
yet, so have compared 2001 figures [1] with those taken from the URL
above.
Cars
383.7 billion vehicle km
1749 killed
= 219.4 million km per fatality
Coaches/Buses
4.9 billion vehicle km
14 killed
= 350 million km per fatality
A few extra people killed on coaches/buses skews the figures somewhat.
Assuming the vehicle km for 2002 is the same then it equates to;
= 257.9 million km per fatality.
Not really that much in it.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_t
ransstats_506526.pdf
--
Dave
Dave
Alan J. Flavell
> Cars
> 383.7 billion vehicle km
> 1749 killed
> = 219.4 million km per fatality
We know that the average car occupancy is less than 2 (someone
suggested 1.6 - it'll do to be going on with), so we can roughly
estimate the person-km per fatality.
> Coaches/Buses
> 4.9 billion vehicle km
> 14 killed
> = 350 million km per fatality
Do we have figures for average occupancy here?
> A few extra people killed on coaches/buses skews the figures somewhat.
Sorry, I don't quite follow that remark.
> Not really that much in it.
But your figures were based on the vehicle, not per traveller...?
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> So people should not want to travel between adjacent towns?
>
THat's what a local bus service is for. The silly bint chose to use a
tour operator who incidentally operates in one of the most efficient
ways possible.
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> Decrease obviously and all trucks buses and coaches should be confined
> to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
>
Cars should be removed from all motorways save between 7-9am and 4-6pm.
Conor
@hotmail.com says...
found a coke can lying on the ground.
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > You've been around on the usenet groups as long as I have.
>
>
Not longer than me.
Conor
@hotmail.com says...
kid.
Conor
> Decrease obviously and all trucks buses and coaches should be confined
> to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
>
The good part about this being that the resulting convoy will ensure no
cars can get on the motorway and those already there will be trapped
forever.
Conor
ga...@maynard3107.fsnet.co.uk says...
> PSV vehicles should be increased to 65 mph.
>
> However all lorries etc should be banned from using the 2nd lane. Therefore
> removing the need for lorries to keep trying to overtake each other at
> painfully slow paces. Therefore freeing up the 2nd & 3rd lane for normal
> motorists.
>
it crawled up a hill at 30 MPH instead of flying past at 56 like I did?
FUCK YOU BOYO.
> This should in turn alleviate some of the congestion on the UK's motorways.
>
It won't. It'll increase it tremendously.
> At one point, I know that the Government were considering this idea. However
> I never managed to find out their results on this.
>
They realised how stupid it was and how much it'd fuck deliveries up
and the resulting public backlash.
Ivor Jones
> Steve Firth wrote:
> Hasting and Brighton adjacent huh? Seem like your geography is as good
as
> your understanding of the world at large, crap.
South Mimms certainly isn't between them..!
Ivor
Conor
peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Given that motorways were built for freight traffic, along with every
> > other form of transport, why should lorries get out of the way of
> > cars?
>
> Common courtesy, a concept you don't seem to understand.
>
Cast_Iron
I do.
Dave
>> Coaches/Buses
>> 4.9 billion vehicle km
>> 14 killed
>> = 350 million km per fatality
>
>Do we have figures for average occupancy here?
>
>> A few extra people killed on coaches/buses skews the figures somewhat.
>
>Sorry, I don't quite follow that remark.
It was explained in the part that you snipped.
>> Not really that much in it.
>
>But your figures were based on the vehicle, not per traveller...?
It's the vehicles that collide.
--
Dave
Dave
>>>>> A coach has seat belts the wearing of which will be made
>>>>> compulsory very soon for all passengers. Also they are
>>>>> very crashworthy. Crumple zones? Ha, in a crash between a
>>>>> bus/coach and a car - well lets just say, airbags and
>>>>> crumple zones on the car won't help much!
>>>>
>>>> But what about (say) a crash between a coach and an HGV?
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> Why don't you ever read articles before responding?
>
>I do.
Then perhaps you would like to explain how your comment 'What about it?'
adds to the discussion?
--
Dave
Cast_Iron
> In article <bg0i5h$ech$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> CastIron_881 @hotmail.com says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <bfvv2h$g6a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>>> CastIron_881 @hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>>> Coaches should be allowed to travel at the same speed as
>>>> cars, they are carrying people many of whom would prefer
>>>> not to be on the coach any longer than possible. Coaches
>>>> and buses also have the best safety record of all road
>>>> based transport.
>>>>
>>> Madness. You want a 9-10 tonne vehicle to do 70 MPH
>>> carrying THE MOST precious cargo of all? If people don't
>>> like being on a coach for a long period of time perhaps
>>> they should fly instead. Coach=long journey time
>>> so they accept this when they book.
>>
>> Conor, have you ever been involved in coaching?
>>
> Yes. I went to Scotland and the Lake Districts on one once
> when I was a kid.
Put you off for life huh? :-)
Cast_Iron
Perfectly true, but if I were travelling from one to other I would use the
appropriate service which isn't a tour company.
Cast_Iron
And the people that get killed and injured.
Cast_Iron
It's an invitation.
RELL6G
<usen...@malloc.co.uk> writes
>David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62 mph (100 km/h)
>> speed limit for coaches on motorways should decrease (to bring them in line
>> with HGVs), remain the same, or increase.
>
>to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
>
prohibited from overtaking at given times of the day on the main routes
(whatever they are called), I can't recall if this also applies in
France and Germany.
One thing that certainly happens in Germany is that all but essential
HGVs are not allowed on the Autobahns on Saturday and Sunday.
As for those precious 'delivery schedules' as it works there then it
should work here providing it is all planned properly.
To have coaches governed to 100 km/h would result in an increase of the
all too familiar scene where one HGV is battling past another with a
speed difference of around 1 mph
--
RELL6G
For emails change nospam to bcvr
Dave
>And the people that get killed and injured.
Another pointless response.
--
Dave
David B
"RELL6G" <n...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OigD4WATdEJ$Ew...@bcvr.demon.co.uk...
But we are already governed to 100 km/h :( But what you don't see often are
coaches attempting to overtake with the 1 mph speed difference. I still
don't understand why?
PeterE
>
> But we are already governed to 100 km/h :( But what you don't see
> often are coaches attempting to overtake with the 1 mph speed
> difference. I still don't understand why?
Presumably because:
(a) there are far fewer coaches on the motorways than HGVs
(b) coaches are often in Lane 2 overtaking HGVs and Nissan Micras
(c) coaches aren't allowed in Lane 3
--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."
duncan robinson
> > PSV vehicles should be increased to 65 mph.
> >
> > However all lorries etc should be banned from using the 2nd lane. Therefore
> > removing the need for lorries to keep trying to overtake each other at
> > painfully slow paces. Therefore freeing up the 2nd & 3rd lane for normal
> > motorists.
> >
> So I should've sat behind that 44 tonner for 2 miles on the M1 whilst
> it crawled up a hill at 30 MPH instead of flying past at 56 like I did?
>
>
> > This should in turn alleviate some of the congestion on the UK's motorways.
> >
> It won't. It'll increase it tremendously.
>
> > At one point, I know that the Government were considering this idea. However
> > I never managed to find out their results on this.
> >
>
> --
> ________________________
> Conor Turton
>
Cast_Iron
Not when taken in context.
Cast_Iron
> In article <1fyrao4.1dk3ujavj2pcxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> Steve Firth <usen...@malloc.co.uk> writes
>> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62
>>> mph (100 km/h) speed limit for coaches on motorways
>>> should decrease (to bring them in line with HGVs), remain
>>> the same, or increase.
>>
>> Decrease obviously and all trucks buses and coaches should
>> be confined
>> to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
>>
> We could of course adopt the Belgian approach whereby HGVs
> are
> prohibited from overtaking at given times of the day on the
> main routes (whatever they are called), I can't recall if
> this also applies in
> France and Germany.
>
> One thing that certainly happens in Germany is that all but
> essential
> HGVs are not allowed on the Autobahns on Saturday and
> Sunday.
>
> As for those precious 'delivery schedules' as it works
> there then it
> should work here providing it is all planned properly.
Therein lies the basic problem in the UK and why so many people think they
have to rely on cars. The philosophy of the 6 "P"s has much to commend it.
(Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance)
Cast_Iron
> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> But we are already governed to 100 km/h :( But what you
>> don't see often are coaches attempting to overtake with
>> the 1 mph speed difference. I still don't understand why?
>
> Presumably because:
>
> (a) there are far fewer coaches on the motorways than HGVs
> (b) coaches are often in Lane 2 overtaking HGVs and Nissan Micras
> (c) coaches aren't allowed in Lane 3
You last is incorrect, coaches are allowed in Lane 3 of a 3 lane motorway.
PeterE
Engage brain before opening mouth.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml#239
"The right-hand lane of a motorway with three or more lanes MUST NOT be used
(except in prescribed circumstances) if you are driving a passenger vehicle
with a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes constructed or adapted to
carry more than eight seated passengers in addition to the driver."
Ian Henden
> In article <bg0i5h$ech$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, CastIron_881
> @hotmail.com says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <bfvv2h$g6a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>>> CastIron_881 @hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>>> Coaches should be allowed to travel at the same speed as
>>>> cars, they are carrying people many of whom would prefer
>>>> not to be on the coach any longer than possible. Coaches
>>>> and buses also have the best safety record of all road
>>>> based transport.
>>>>
>>> Madness. You want a 9-10 tonne vehicle to do 70 MPH
>>> carrying THE MOST precious cargo of all? If people don't
>>> like being on a coach for a long period of time perhaps
>>> they should fly instead. Coach=long journey time
>>> so they accept this when they book.
>>
>> Conor, have you ever been involved in coaching?
>>
> Yes. I went to Scotland and the Lake Districts on one once when I was
> a kid.
I think you'll find that most charabancs have a roof on, these days. And
four-wheel brakes, not just brakes on the back.
Ian Henden
>> km/h) speed limit for coaches on motorways should decrease (to bring
>> them in line with HGVs), remain the same, or increase.
>
> Decrease obviously and all trucks buses and coaches should be confined
> to lane 1 on the motorway with overtaking prohibited.
Leaving lane 3 for me and Firthy (in that order!!)
Dave
>> You last is incorrect, coaches are allowed in Lane 3 of a 3 lane
>> motorway.
>
>Engage brain before opening mouth.
>
>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml#239
>
>"The right-hand lane of a motorway with three or more lanes MUST NOT be
>used (except in prescribed circumstances) if you are driving a
>passenger vehicle with a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes
>constructed or adapted to carry more than eight seated passengers in
>addition to the driver."
A fairly recent change to the rules (in comparison to the prohibition on
HGVs using lane 3) - but an important change. It seems that many
motorists are unaware that certain vehicles are *not* allowed in to lane
3 to overtake them. Thus they wonder why the HGV is right up their
bumper as they tootle along at 50mph in lane 2...
--
Dave
Dave
What context?
It's the number of vehicles that have crashes which is most relevant
there - not how far the passengers have travelled.
Vehicle miles per fatality is as good a measure as anything. (In any
event it's hard to read too much into the figures anyway as they are
lumping together local bus services and long-distance express coaches.
--
Dave
Oldham Passenger Transport
for quite a while now (Charterplan of Stockport for one) I believe in most
of the things said, that HGV can and do crawl up behind you and tailgate,
before finally jumping through the boot and passing(yes some foreign drivers
coming up from Dover at 80MPH), or holding traffic up in lane 2 because they
just want to outrun the lorry in front, but don't have the speed to do it.
Well I think coaches "should" be governed to 65mph while HGV's be governed
to "60", thus giving pcvs 5mph more to pass comfortably, but I agree that a
coach should be able to use lane 3 ONLY if overtaking HGV's in lane 2.
We did Central London to Manchester in just over 4 and a half hours at 65
mph, so most passengers are prepared for long journeys (as per National
Express
"David B" <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bfv45u$vvg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I would like to know from you all whether the present 62 mph (100 km/h)
> speed limit for coaches on motorways should decrease (to bring them in
line
> with HGVs), remain the same, or increase. This follows a thread from
> trucknet.uk
>
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/bbsuk/Forum1/HTML/002524.html
>
> Many thanks.
>
> --
> Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
>
>
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Cast_Iron" <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg1jld$lnd$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
But they are allowed in any lane of a dual carriageway such as the A40 and
A2 which are 3 lanes across.
PS: the number of coaches using the motorway seems to have leapt for the
summer season.
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Steve Firth" <usen...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fys4gb.1w9flrpszv9vtN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> duncan robinson <british-...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Obsenities prove a very restricted vocabulary.
>
> Being unable to spell "obscenities" displays a restricted vocabulary.
> Using obscenities shows if anything an expanded vocabulary since even if
> all other things are equal the fact that Conor is happy to use the term
> "fuck" means he has a vocabulary at least one word larger than you.
>
> You on the other hand have proved yourself to be a witless cunt with the
> diseased pudenda of a syphilitic baboon, by your inability to respond
> correctly to a usenet post. Turn off the HTML and get a clue you
> anencephalic cock-sucking turd.
>
> PS insults to follow.
!!!!!! I'll make sure I *never* post in HTML. Could seriously ruins ones
day! !!!!!!
>
> --
> "I have come up with a sure-fire concept for a hit television show,
> which would be called `A Live Celebrity Gets Eaten by a Shark'."
> -- Dave Barry, "The Wonders of Sharks on TV"
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Oldham Passenger Transport" <oldham163....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:%XZUa.657$qb2.8...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> my view on the subject is although I have worked in the bus/coach business
> for quite a while now (Charterplan of Stockport for one) I believe in most
> of the things said, that HGV can and do crawl up behind you and tailgate,
> before finally jumping through the boot and passing(yes some foreign
drivers
> coming up from Dover at 80MPH), or holding traffic up in lane 2 because
they
> just want to outrun the lorry in front, but don't have the speed to do it.
> Well I think coaches "should" be governed to 65mph while HGV's be governed
> to "60", thus giving pcvs 5mph more to pass comfortably, but I agree that
a
> coach should be able to use lane 3 ONLY if overtaking HGV's in lane 2.
Couple of points here. HGVs are governed to 85 km/h and coaches to 100 km/h
giving us 15 km/h (9.3 mph) difference when overtaking. The national limits
are 60 and 70 mph for each type respectively. 5 mph is in my view not a
comfortable overtaking speed past another vehicle. I've not yet been
overtaken by a foreign HGV with a faulty limiter but those tipper trucks are
prime candidates for that. As for using lane 3, since most traffic is doing
70 mph+, I wouldn't like to venture out there in a speed limited vehicle.
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Dave" <news.re...@dv-8.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FHSgFGADcBJ$Ewc$@dv-8.demon.co.uk...
> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> writes
> >A coach has seat belts the wearing of which will be made compulsory very
> >soon for all passengers. Also they are very crashworthy. Crumple zones?
Ha,
> >in a crash between a bus/coach and a car - well lets just say, airbags
and
> >crumple zones on the car won't help much!
>
> But what about (say) a crash between a coach and an HGV?
I'd say that at least in a coach you would have survivors whereas those in a
car would most likely be dead!
>
> --
> Dave
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Dave" <news.re...@dv-8.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8kCeNqCBOCJ$Ew...@dv-8.demon.co.uk...
> Steve Firth <usen...@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >>
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/
> >> dft_transstats_022248.pdf
> >>
> >> In 2002 1747 car users were killed, 16981 were seriously injured and
178697
> >> were slightly injured, a total of 197425.
> >>
> >> In the same year on bus and coaches, 19 were killed, 532 were seriously
> >> injured, 8454 were slightly injured for a grand total of 9005.
> >>
> >> I'd say travelling by bus/coach was safer :)
> >
> >Figures mean bugger all when presented like that.
>
> It might be a better comparison to look at casualties as a proportion of
> distance travelled. DfT doesn't seem to have 2002 figures available
> yet, so have compared 2001 figures [1] with those taken from the URL
> above.
>
> Cars
> 383.7 billion vehicle km
> 1749 killed
> = 219.4 million km per fatality
>
>
> Coaches/Buses
> 4.9 billion vehicle km
> 14 killed
> = 350 million km per fatality
>
> A few extra people killed on coaches/buses skews the figures somewhat.
> Assuming the vehicle km for 2002 is the same then it equates to;
> = 257.9 million km per fatality.
>
>
> Not really that much in it.
I don't think distance is a fair measure. There are far more buses than
coaches (which these figures include) which spend a lot of time on the road
but cover relatively few miles.
>
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_t
> ransstats_506526.pdf
> --
> Dave
duncan robinson
> > Obsenities prove a very restricted vocabulary.
>
> Using obscenities shows if anything an expanded vocabulary since even if
Dave
>I AM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITHOUT RESORTING TO IT.
But not without shouting, it seems.
--
Dave
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> Wrong there as well.
>
Whatever. I was using them through Prestel in 1984-5 and Compuserve in
1990.
Conor
coac...@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> "Conor" <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Obsenities prove a very restricted vocabulary.
> The system refered to works exeptionaly well in many continental countries, and surprisingly does not create a long tailback preventing other motorists from joining as they also tend to leave more than the standard 10' gap used in the u.k.
>
It works well in many continental countries because the attitude of
drivers is different from the UK.
> the point is about trucks overtaking at 1/2 mph more than the vehicle they are passing a fact all to common these days.
No it isn't. Restricting them to L1 slows down those who can go
considerably faster than the others.
Conor
coac...@ukonline.co.uk says...
> wrong again the fact I choose not to use the word is not evidence i do not know it , it is merely proof that I AM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITHOUT RESORTING TO IT.
>
ROFLMAO.
Look up the definition of the word hypocrite.
Oh and as to "2) educated", there is no way in hell you are. You don't
even have a fundamental grasp of punctuation or sentence construction.
Your post reminds me of the first homework my son brought home when he
was 5.
I may swear but at least it's formatted correctly.
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> You on the other hand have proved yourself to be a witless cunt with the
> diseased pudenda of a syphilitic baboon, by your inability to respond
> correctly to a usenet post. Turn off the HTML and get a clue you
> anencephalic cock-sucking turd.
>
Didn't notice the HTML. Fortunately my news client strips it out.
Nice reply BTW.
Conor
says...
> One thing that certainly happens in Germany is that all but essential
> HGVs are not allowed on the Autobahns on Saturday and Sunday.
>
That is impossible to do in the UK. The supermarkets will be empty long
before teatime Saturday.
Conor
@hotmail.com says...
> You last is incorrect, coaches are allowed in Lane 3 of a 3 lane motorway.
>
You're wrong. They've not been allowed for some time now. The rules
changed.
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > coaches are allowed in Lane 3 of a 3 lane motorway.
>
>
I swear you've memorised it.
Conor
da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com says...
> PS: the number of coaches using the motorway seems to have leapt for the
> summer season.
>
No, really?
Conor
oldham163....@ntlworld.com says...
> my view on the subject is although I have worked in the bus/coach business
> for quite a while now (Charterplan of Stockport for one) I believe in most
> of the things said, that HGV can and do crawl up behind you and tailgate,
If we're tailgaiting you then you're driving too slowly. No car driver
should be going so slowly on a motorway that a lorry can catch them
and/or pass them.
Cast_Iron
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Given that motorways were built for freight traffic
>
> That's a claim that needs proof.
My contention the "motorways were built for freight traffic" is based on a
study of transport in general over many years.
There were at that time (1940s/50s) relatively few cars making long distance
journey's. To travel anywhere even on the Trunk Roads, took so long that
unless it was to the next town that it was impractical except for an
overnight stay. (Doubtless they will those who can provide exceptions) This
is why the opening of the M1 and with it the capacity to do London to
Birmingham in an hour or so (in the right car) was such a wonder. Better
progress than is now possible I would suggest even if the 70 limit had not
been inflicted.
However, I have found a reference that supports the general thrust of my
argument. Also to be considered is the pattern of vehicle types in use in
the 1950s and early sixties when road building policy was being formulated
(which was just as vibrant as it is now).
This extract comes from:
Starkie, David; 1982; The Motorway Age; Pergamon Press; Oxford. (It forms
one of a series entitled "Urban and Regional Planning")
"FREIGHT vehicles had always been of relevance to road planning in post-war
Britain. The 1946 tea room plan, for example, was heavily influenced by the
need to move goods by road more easily in order to assist development areas
and to boost the export drive. Then, at the beginning of the sixties, when
the new "rolling programme" of trunk road improvement was getting into its
stride, priority was given to those routes carrying the heaviest volume of
industrial and commercial traffic. But it was in the seventies, largely on
account of the juggernaut controversy, that lorries began to play an
enhanced and especially important role in shaping the roads programme."
Here's a case study from Pope, Rex (ed); 1989; Atals of British Social and
Economic History Since c1700; MacMillan; New York
"Park Royal: motor transport between the wars.
Park Royal developed as an industrial estate between the world wars. The
earliest factories were located on the northern edge of the area in the
1900s. They used either the Grand Junction Canal, one firm having its own
branch cut right into the factory, or the Euston to Birmingham railway from
which sidings were built into the estate. On the southern side of the site
the Great Western Railway installed sidings in 1903 for the Royal
Agricultural Society to its Paddington to Birmingham line. However, rapid
growth of what became the largest industrial estate in southern England
really occurred when the road network around it was improved. The A40
Western Avenue was commenced in 1921 at Wood Lane, Shepherds Bush, and by
1943 had reached Denham. The North Circular Road from Chiswick to Southgate
was built as a new road in the 1930s. As Map 5.21 shows, these roads
bordered the estate and gave it rapid access to all parts of the large and
affluent metropolitan market. Many of the industries established on Park
Royal - biscuits, tinned goods, electrical goods, car components,
pharmaceuticals, paper, and porter - were aimed at this market. The
workforce was catered for by the tube line - North Acton station opened on
the Central Line in 1923 - and by the bus network, both motor and trolley.
By the end of the 1930s the London Passenger Transport Board was voicing
complaints about heavy peak loading at the commencement and completion of
work, of buses which were 'definitely uneconomical to run'."
If one then extrapolates from the Park Royal example to the country at
large, where similar patterns were developing (it's just that Park Royal was
(is?) the largest trading estate in the country) then my contention is
valid.
Conor
u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fys1y1.dchcno16dxo5tN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
> > u...@malloc.co.uk says...
> >
> > > Wrong there as well.
> > >
> > Whatever. I was using them through Prestel in 1984-5 and Compuserve in
> > 1990.
>
> like a slow learner.
>
Nice try. 1/10 for effort :-)
Conor
> > study of transport in general over many years.
>
> referred solely to the benefits of the motorway for private motorists.
As do all politicians aqs they're the biggest pool of voters.
Cast_Iron
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My contention the "motorways were built for freight
>> traffic" is based on a study of transport in general over
>> many years.
>
> Ernest Marples referred solely to the benefits of the
> reference to any plan or any parliamentary
> statement that the motorways were built solely or even
> predominantly for freight.
>
> You're talking bollocks, but then again that's not news.
How convenient that you've snipped the reference I supplied.
Cast_Iron
> consisting entirely of opinion. You appear to be one of the
> stupid people who think that if I choose note to quote your
> hundreds of lines of irrelevant garbage that I have somehow
> removed it from the view of the public. Your original post
> is still on most servers, I suspect, and anyone who wishes
> to read it may do so.
Ah sussed it now, anything that is contrary to your views is dismissed as
"unsupported supposition and humbug" and not merely dismissed out of hand
but has your usual juvenile abuse thrown in for good measure.
W K
> In article <%XZUa.657$qb2.8...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
> oldham163....@ntlworld.com says...
> > my view on the subject is although I have worked in the bus/coach
business
> > for quite a while now (Charterplan of Stockport for one) I believe in
most
> > of the things said, that HGV can and do crawl up behind you and
tailgate,
>
> If we're tailgaiting you then you're driving too slowly. No car driver
> should be going so slowly on a motorway that a lorry can catch them
> and/or pass them.
Heavy congestion or extremes in weather conditions come to mind.
Being stuck behind lorries doing 55 mph comes to mind as another. esp. in 2
lane bits.
Cast_Iron
> speculation
> into their post will find it dismissed as humbug. If as you
> claim motorways were intended solely or principaly for
> freight use then you
> will be able to find the matter referred to in Hansard.
> However there
> is, to the best of my knowledge, no such statement and the
> only comments
> I can find from Ernest Marples refer to the benefit to the
> private motorist. Indeed, given the performance (or lack of
> it) and the
> restricted carrying capacity of wagons in 1959 it is
> unlikely that
> freight movements by road paid much part in the
> consideration of parliament.
What's Parliament got to do with it?
Dave
>Indeed, given the performance (or lack of it) and the restricted
>carrying capacity of wagons in 1959 it is unlikely that freight
>movements by road paid much part in the consideration of parliament.
That'll be why road haulage was a bit of a 'political football' then -
being nationalised by Labour after the war and privatised again by the
Tories in the 50s.
--
Dave
Conor
@hotmail.com says...
> Ah sussed it now, anything that is contrary to your views is dismissed as
> "unsupported supposition and humbug" and not merely dismissed out of hand
> but has your usual juvenile abuse thrown in for good measure.
>
Bingo.
Conor
says...
> Heavy congestion or extremes in weather conditions come to mind.
>
> Being stuck behind lorries doing 55 mph comes to mind as another. esp. in 2
> lane bits.
>
Sorry, I'm off assuming things again.
Dave
>What's Parliament got to do with it?
You might have heard of them. They makes laws and stuff. There's a
famous clock attached to their building.
Have a look at www.parliament.uk - you might even learn something.
--
Dave
Cast_Iron
> to pass all legislation in the UK and who scrutinise and approve budgets
> for major public works.
Quite, they only approve, and then not always. That means that all the work
is done beforehand. Parliament doesn't decide policy that is the job of
Government.
Before you start trying to teach people about how this country is run (I use
the term loosely) it might be helpful if you learnt about it yourself.
Cast_Iron
Yet again you adequately demonstrate your inadequacy.
Dave
>> >What's Parliament got to do with it?
>>
>> You might have heard of them. They makes laws and stuff. There's a
>> famous clock attached to their building.
>>
>> Have a look at www.parliament.uk - you might even learn something.
>
>Yet again you adequately demonstrate your inadequacy.
What's 'inadequate' about telling you "what parliament [has] to do with
it"?
--
Dave
Cast_Iron
>> news:1fyte1v.sa7amdi0v04tN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>>> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's Parliament got to do with it?
>>>
>>> Have you never heard of them? Body of elected
>>> representatives who have
>>> to pass all legislation in the UK and who scrutinise and
>>> approve budgets for major public works.
>>
>> Quite, they only approve, and then not always. That means
>> that all the work is done beforehand. Parliament doesn't
>> decide policy that is the job of Government.
>
> major works, such
> as the construction of a motorway, the minsiter repsonsible
> is required
> to justify his decision to Parliament.
Thank you, you've just confirmed what I said.
Although the current
> government
> has tried to dodge this responsibility, in 1958 it would
> not have been
> such a trivial matter.
>
>> Before you start trying to teach people about how this
>> country is run (I use the term loosely) it might be
>> helpful if you learnt about it yourself.
>
> You appear to be woefully ignorant of the process of
> government, as
> ignorant as you are of both simple mathematics and the
> Highway Code.
I've never claimed any ability at maths, unlike you who is simply brilliant
at everything.
Cast_Iron
Read and deduce.
Dave
>> Have you never heard of them? Body of elected representatives who have
>> to pass all legislation in the UK and who scrutinise and approve budgets
>> for major public works.
>
>Quite, they only approve, and then not always. That means that all the
>work is done beforehand. Parliament doesn't decide policy that is the
>job of Government.
The executive (i.e. the Government) *proposes* legislation, the
legislature (i.e. Parliament); scrutinises, amends and passes (or not)
legislation proposed by the Executive. Specifically note the
'amendment' part.
Individual members of the legislature can also propose legislation.
>Before you start trying to teach people about how this country is run
>(I use the term loosely) it might be helpful if you learnt about it
>yourself.
Pot, kettle, black.
I suggest that an A-level course in Government & Politics is a good
starting point if you have interest in that area.
--
Dave
Dave
Oh right. It means that you are too dim to work anything out for
yourself.
--
Dave
@traindriver.fsnet.co.uk A Railman
"PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bg1km7$4qg$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Cast_Iron <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > PeterE wrote:
> >> David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But we are already governed to 100 km/h :( But what you
> >>> don't see often are coaches attempting to overtake with
> >>> the 1 mph speed difference. I still don't understand why?
> >>
> >> Presumably because:
> >>
> >> (a) there are far fewer coaches on the motorways than HGVs
> >> (b) coaches are often in Lane 2 overtaking HGVs and Nissan Micras
> >> (c) coaches aren't allowed in Lane 3
> >
> > You last is incorrect, coaches are allowed in Lane 3 of a 3 lane
> > motorway.
>
> Engage brain before opening mouth.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.shtml#239
>
> "The right-hand lane of a motorway with three or more lanes MUST NOT be
used
> (except in prescribed circumstances) if you are driving a passenger
vehicle
> with a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes constructed or adapted to
> carry more than eight seated passengers in addition to the driver."
>
> --
> http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
> "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."
>
But they are allowed in lane 3 on an A road dual carriageway!
--
Tim Buckley
David Farrier
David B <da...@daveb07890.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bg11vk$bi1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> From the brochure on the Volvo B7L (it was at www.volvo.com) all vehicles
> have a factory fitted speed limiter set at either 70, 80 or 90 km/h (thats
> 43/50/56mph) ... It seems your batch has the lowest setting.
>
I've seen Merseybus Atlanteans and ex-London Titans doing over 60 mph on the
M62.
OK, so they were on a suspended tow to the breakers in Barnsley :)
Regards
Dave Farrier
David Farrier
Gavin MAYNARD <ga...@maynard3107.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ead5c2815a60086f...@free.teranews.com...
> PSV vehicles should be increased to 65 mph.
>
> However all lorries etc should be banned from using the 2nd lane.
Therefore
> removing the need for lorries to keep trying to overtake each other at
> painfully slow paces. Therefore freeing up the 2nd & 3rd lane for normal
> motorists.
>
I've noticed a couple of these drivers on the M62 (Tarbock to M6) recently.
Truck in middle lane taking over 5 miles to pass a truck on the inside lane,
at roughly 60 mph.
This restricts the third lane to tossers in BMWs and large Rovers doing 90
mph about 3 car lengths apart.
What a boring thread, I guess the lunatic fringe is from uk.transport?
Regards
Dave Farrier
Cast_Iron
> What a boring thread, I guess the lunatic fringe is from
> uk.transport?
Where else?
Alan J. Flavell
> I guess the lunatic fringe is from uk.transport?
What's new?
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Heavy congestion or extremes in weather conditions come to mind.
>
>Being stuck behind lorries doing 55 mph comes to mind as another. esp. in 2
>lane bits.
Or 50mph limits. I tend to stick religiously to these, but most lorry
drivers know what they can get away with and so decide to go past.
This is, of course, no problem - as long as I am doing 50mph *in lane
1* they can overtake.
If, hypothetically, in the above situation, I am doing 50mph in the
middle lane, and am not overtaking someone going slower than this, I
am of course in the wrong and should move over...
(To add my bit to the general discussion, I tend to find lorry drivers
to be pretty courteous - most unlike the BMW drivers doing 90 in lane
3....)
Neil
David B
--
Remove "0" from from daveb07890 to reply
"Cast_Iron" <CastIr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg3pdk$36q$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Right I've learnt my lesson. I won't be posting topics like that to
uk.transport again!
Alan J. Flavell
[re. roadworks speed limits]
> If, hypothetically, in the above situation, I am doing 50mph in the
> middle lane, and am not overtaking someone going slower than this, I
> am of course in the wrong and should move over...
But what if the roadworks signs keep repeating "STAY IN LANE", as they
often do?
Colin McKenzie
>
> If we're tailgaiting you then you're driving too slowly. No car driver
> should be going so slowly on a motorway that a lorry can catch them
> and/or pass them.
>
powerful enough to exceed 90 kph - or the law that says they have to be
driven that fast.
If I want to drive on a motorway at a nice economical 50 mph, perhaps
speeding up to 60 downhill and slowing to 40 uphill, no-one can stop me.
And if I happen to be in a car that can't go any faster, I still have a
perfect right to use it on the motorway.
Of course, none of this would happen in the middle lane, unless I catch
up with something even slower.
Colin Mckenzie
PeterE
> Conor wrote:
>>
>> If we're tailgaiting you then you're driving too slowly. No car
>> driver should be going so slowly on a motorway that a lorry can
>> catch them and/or pass them.
>>
> Interesting theory. Please show me the law that says cars must be
> powerful enough to exceed 90 kph - or the law that says they have to
> be driven that fast.
>
> If I want to drive on a motorway at a nice economical 50 mph, perhaps
> speeding up to 60 downhill and slowing to 40 uphill, no-one can stop
> me.
There are cases of people being prosecuted for careless driving for going
too slowly on the motorway.
> And if I happen to be in a car that can't go any faster, I still have
> a perfect right to use it on the motorway.
No cars manufactured in the past forty years are incapable of exceeding 56
mph.
I agree with Conor - car drivers who are unable or unwilling to at least
match speed with trucks on the motorway shouldn't be on it in the first
place.
Dave
>> If, hypothetically, in the above situation, I am doing 50mph in the
>> middle lane, and am not overtaking someone going slower than this, I
>> am of course in the wrong and should move over...
>
>But what if the roadworks signs keep repeating "STAY IN LANE", as they
>often do?
Then you are likely to be in 50mph limit anyway (they are pretty much
standard in major roadworks these days). Either that, or you should
have been in lane 1 before the roadworks anyway.
--
Dave