|
You're right, a company near here makes premium quality pies, and they used to deliver to the supermarkets around and about the area, now, they have to put the pies onto wheeled racks, and a truck picks them up (at their expense) takes them to Watford, unloads them, and then another truck brings them back to our area the next day. And the government tells us not to put too much water in the kettle to help save a puff of CO2, What nonsense, we shouldn't do all this.
|
Our company had a Transit Luton which they used to lug kit to exhibitions and trade shows.
I had the misfortune of having to drive it up the M1 from the M25 to Leeds with a tonne or so of printing kit on the back. Could just about coax 60 out of it on the flat (my colleague timed 50-60 mph in 57 seconds, but down to 40 uphill.
I remember thinking the same thing about sympathising with truckers. Trouble is you would go for an overtake, and then run into a slight incline and lose the speed. If you deliberately backed off, it would take several miles to get the speed back again.
Without a doubt the most horrible vehicle I have ever driven.
Cheers
DP
|
|
Hear hear DP. Nasty reluctant lumbering thing. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
I think you will find NW that as a % of vehicles on the roads trucks are getting less, not more. This is down to the higher GVW and the smarter working practices of the hauliers. Just have a look at the number of specialised trailers that are now on the roads. There are lots of double decker trailers for supermarkets and parcel carriers for a start.
But it is true there are still many wasted miles, but not because of centralisation but more because of Just In Time deliveries where the vehicles may not be full etc.
|
|
I was cycling along the Kennet and Avon canal towpath today. The speed limit for boats is 4 mph. One boat was patiently chugging along behind an old tub doing about 2 mph!!!
|
|
You should not be overtaking trucks with a bus full of kids.
|
Andy,
I hope my first post made it absolutely clear that the safety of those in the back was paramount; that "Any thought of overtaking on ordinary roads was completely out of the question."; that "In the end you have to be very, very patient " and "give up overtaking ".
However, on the motorway, where there was a long clear stretch behind me and i felt I could get past , usually on uphill stretches where a truck was slowing and I could maintain my 62mph I occasionally overtook. Mostly though I was patient and sat a safe distance behind.
I was really trying to express sympathy for truck drivers who have to do this for hours every working day, whereas I only have to do it half a dozen times a year for a few hours.
--
Phil
|
|
|
You should not be overtaking trucks with a bus full of kids.
So, should all those coaches full of schoolkids on school outings remain in the inside lane with all the lorries then? I think not.
|
|
|
You should not be overtaking trucks with a bus full of kids.
I'm interested by this, because it shows a way of thinking that I catch myself doing as well. Why would the lives of kids be any more important than any others in this situation? Subjectively, they are innocents in your care, so yes, there should be no risk. Objectively, they are n lives, no more or less important than any other. Indeed, you could argue that they are not responsible for the livelyhood of any others, and will have no dependants, so it's arguable they are less important. It's an emotional ont a rational argument is my point.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
>>You should not be overtaking trucks with a bus full of kids.
Goodness me we get some nonsense around here.
Do I assume it would be ok to overtake if the bus wasn't quite full of kids ? How about if there's only one kid? How many kids do you need on board to make overtaking the work of the devil ? What about adults ? Do you need more or less adults to make overtaking immoral ? What about the age of kids ? Can you overtake mroe often if you have older kids than if you have younger kids ? At what age of passenger does overtaking become acceptable ? Is there some correlation between quantity and age ? i.e. 4kids at 4yrs old is the max, btu at 14 years old you can have up to 7 ?
We need answers...
|
|
|
|
|
>>And if the trucks had to pay anything near the real economic cost to the rest of us in keeing them on the road, we'd see a lot fewer of them
Oh god, my life is coming to an end. I agree with NowWheels.
Put them back on the rail where they belong, invest in the railways and decentralised depots and suppliers.
|
Put them back on the rail where they belong, invest in the railways and decentralised depots and suppliers.
Is this post a mickey take ?
MTC
|
Actually not.
We should have invested more in the rail and expanded it through the 70s and 80s rather than contracting it as we did. We should not have removed all the distribution depots which were near the freight lines and we should have encouraged more freight to either come on to the rail or to remain on the rail.
We have far too much heavy freight on the roads. Of course, its easy to understand why, since it is a more efficient and cheaper model so who can blame them.
If we always understood *total* cost rather than political cost of the next cheque we write, then these decisions would be more appropriate.
The total cost of freight on road includes polution, wear and tear, road space needed, accidents, congestions, environmental cost of manufacture etc. etc. As it does for cars. Although obviously you have jobs created and economies stimulated within manufacturing and automotive.
I have no idea which is the lower net polluter, btu from a congestion point of view then increased usage of a rail network is a significant step forward.
|
>>We should have invested more in the rail and expanded it through the 70s and 80s rather than contracting it as we did. We should not have removed all the distribution depots which were near the freight lines and we should have encouraged more freight to either come on to the rail or to remain on the rail.
When the planning application was made for a container feeder port on the Isle of Grain (at the junction of the River Medway and Thames) great noises were made about 70% of the containers using the old rail link to the recently closed oil refinery.
Once planning permission was granted it transpired that 100% of the container movements would be by road. Why? Quite simply 2 old rail bridges had conventional arches and the corners of containers could not pass under them. There was no money to rebuild the bridges, and this situation continues today. In fact the main A228 has become an accident black spot and major road improvements have and are being made. The total cost of road improvements must be incredible compared to rebuilding 2 bridges.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
>>The total cost of road improvements must be incredible compared to rebuilding 2 bridges.
Exactly. But its never about total cost, its all about the cheque to be written today. And even that will be concealed if possible.
I largely agree with NW that vehicles need to be removed from our roads. However I believe it should be done by providing alternatives not simply by persecuting road users of any description.
Another poitn which annoys me is that we seem to see it as compularoy and essential that the railway must run as a profitable and standalone exercise. Why ? Surely if it removes £xbn of expenditure from other places that shoud lbe taken into account in the railway P&L ? And why should it not be run for the good of the coutnry rather than for a profit ? We don't expect the NHS to run at a profit -( which is just as well since the clowns running that "service" would be at a loss as to where to start) so why the railways?.
|
>>Another point which annoys me is that we seem to see it as compularoy and essential that the railway must run as a profitable and standalone exercise.
I must disagree, all forms of transport must be able to break even at least. Otherwise this argument could be used to say subsidies should be available to road transport.
Considering the arguement further, if we did not have a railway system would we build on today? I very much doubt it. Most of our railway system was laid out in Victorian days (hence no diect link across LOndon) to replace the canal network and before road transport was possible.
For maximum economy canal transport cannot be beaten as the weight of the load is supported by water, so only a small amount of effort is needed to move it. By comparison a train is a very heavy object that tows carriages or trucks. The effort required is substantial to move this, even when empty. By comparison the lorry can use any road compared to dedicated rail tracks, it can pick up and deliver goods at exactly the right places, and it can do this very efficiently in relation to time. For these reasons I believe the lorry is our best solution for our goods delivery in most circumstances.
This being a motoring forum, I am surprised that some people are suggesting rail transport. If we did not have road transport, cars and lorries, our nation would never have developed such a sophisticated road system that we all benefit using today.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
The cost of running trucks is subsidised through taxation, as the hauliers only pay for the marginal costs of running the vehicles, not the infrastructure. More vehicles of the road could well mean better road conditions. At present the demand for raod space is such that enormous delay and wastage occurs, not to mention frustration and its consequences. its not an 'either or" situation surely?
|
>>The cost of running trucks is subsidised through taxation, as the hauliers only pay for the marginal costs of running the vehicles, not the infrastructure.
What?
Road hauliers have to pay road tax, excise duty and VAT. By comparison the railways are still subsidised by central government and rail passengers do not pay VAT on rail fares. I think your arguement it fatally flawed.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
One further point.
Why are taxes raised from road transport approximately four times greater than expediture on roads.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
Why are taxes raised from road transport approximately four times greater than expediture on roads.
Depends which costs you count. If you add in the social and environmental costs of road use, the figures look very different.
|
"Depends which costs you count. If you add in the social and environmental costs of road use, the figures look very different."
If you apply that logic, then flying is clealy undertaxed: no tax on fuel, no VAT on fuel, the scoial costs are enormous (noise/pollution etc).
And if you apply that logic to pubs, the cost of a licence is far too low: the costs of policing and hospital traetment are not reflected in alcohol licenses.
As for tobacco.. well words fail me.
I'm sorry, we could go on at elngth.
Try including social costs in verey project on a selective basis and we would never have progressed beyond a man with a red flag.
After all the development of the car lead to the tank and the social costs of that...!!:-)
madf
|
"Depends which costs you count. If you add in the social and environmental costs of road use, the figures look very different." If you apply that logic, then flying is clealy undertaxed: no tax on fuel, no VAT on fuel, the scoial costs are enormous (noise/pollution etc).
True, it is massively undertaxed. That's why the Euopean Parliament wants it taxed: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5143914.stm
|
>>Depends which costs you count. If you add in the social and environmental costs of road use, the figures look very different.
You are now entering the realms of guesswork rather than factual information. The social cost of only taxing transport for the road cost would have an immense impact on our social security system. Also part of the money raised by transport taxes helps to fund the anitquated rail system we have.
The idea of transfering goods from road to rail sounds idealistic, rather than practicable. Even if the greater proportion of goods were delivered by rail, virtually all would need to be handled by road at the start and end of each journey. In my idea that makes it very inefficient in time and manpower. So it should be upto the market to decide which method of delivery it uses. The idea of competiton and being able to delivery either quicker or cheaper should be decided by the person who pays. Over the past couple of decades we have seen parcel companies move from a standard 3 to 5 day delivery cycle to a mainly 24 hour or less delivery cycle. This is a result of customer demand and the parcel companies have responded, and the customer has agreed to pay the extra to get it.
By comparison some months ago I read an article in a canal boat magazine of a gravel company moving from road to canal because it could be done cheaper. In this respect the product was heavy, not time critical or perishable, so moving it much slower made economic sense.
We need varied methods of delivering goods, but for the greater part using road transport is the best solution on cost, speed and flexibility.
So next time you are held up by a lorry, just have a little patience - we need those goods delivered.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
it should be upto the market to decide which method of delivery it uses
Green economists argue that those decisions are currently being made in a market which is rigged in favour of road transport, just as international travel decisions are being made in a market blatantly rigged in favour of air transport.
|
>>Green economists argue
Hey NW you are getting political to justify your position. This thread has moved a long way from the OP, I tried bring it back at the end of my last post. For this reason I am no longer going to continue this deviation of discussion.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
As someone who regularly has to endure the rolling road block on the dual carriageway A43 they will get no sympathy form me.
|
>>Green economists argue Hey NW you are getting political to justify your position.
There are plenty of different schools of thought in economics. I don't see why citing one model of economics is somehow apolitical, but another is political -- either they both are, or neither is.
Anyway, it's been nice talking to you.
|
>>Anyway, it's been nice talking to you.
Glad we can disagree and still remain friendly about it.
By the way I do try my bit at going green, today I cycled to work rather than using the car.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
