Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B433 - Heavy Goods Vehicles Safety Bill

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Drivers have blind spots too, how are you going to solve that? Lasers?
    Considering the picture in your sig I think it's "lasers".
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Of course you could just say that all heavy duty vehicles should have those motion sensors that some new cars have. The ones that bleep when something is too close. Those are pretty cool and pretty useful.
    I think camera's are a bit extreme plus that would seriously bump up the price.

    And also forcing companies to do this within 12 months might not be realistic if a haulage company has a lot of heavy duty vehicles.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Drivers have blind spots too, how are you going to solve that? Lasers?
    The thing is an ordinary private car is a lot less of a risk than a HGV.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Load of tosh. An expensive bill to solve a widely non-existent problem. If you want to improve HGV safety, make the penalty for using your mobile phone whilst driving one 6 points, not 3. And ensure that every HGV has a speed limiter fitted, so that they can't break the 60mph limit any more.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Where's the evidence that this will make HGV's any safer to other road users?

    I think the hazardous thing concerning HGV's isn't the blind spots, its more often than not the driver of the vehicle.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Who wrote this Bill?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    MacCuishy's got this one covered for me. Driver's also have blind spots in smaller vehicles which can do similar amounts of damage (at the right speed) to HGVs, especially to people/cyclists.

    Its a non issue that never really needed addressing...
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A good bill in principle, but most accidents that occur in the blindspots of HGVs are due to the error of the other party. Too many people tailgate HGVs, especially some cyclists. Lorry drivers or haulage companies should not be penalised for the poor behaviour of other road users.

    If anything, we need to promote a change in driving culture to ensure more people keep their distance. My driving instructor told me "if you can't see the mirrors of a lorry, the driver can't see you". Promoting better driving standards will ultimately save more lives than costly HGV improvements.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    MacCuishy's got this one covered for me. Driver's also have blind spots in smaller vehicles which can do similar amounts of damage (at the right speed) to HGVs, especially to people/cyclists.

    Its a non issue that never really needed addressing...
    Similar amounts of damage? Are you joking?
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    The thing is an ordinary private car is a lot less of a risk than a HGV.
    More people are killed involving cars than any other mode of transport...
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm only replying to the valid points.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    The structure of this Bill is rather poor as too is the formatting. I don't think that you can 'eliminate' blind spots entirely. We only have one House of Parliament at the moment so 2 just is irrelevant and is poorly researched. Is the Labour party proposing that private companies pay for this or do they intend to provide support for companies clobbered by yet more regulation and yet more costs. How much will the training cost? How much training do they need? It's a poorly thought out Bill and I'm voting no.
    When typing this bill up, the formatting was the least of my worries. If this bill gets past the first reading, I'll make sure that formatting is amended. There will be not a lot of training needed, just the equipment fitted and possibly a few days of relaxed training, nothing too intense. I do not agree that it is a 'poorly thought out' bill - this is my first bill which I put a lot of time and work into including research.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Seems a bit nanny stateish but i shall make a judgement when it goes to vote.

    You need to specify what penalties would be put on hauliers.
    This could be an idea to consider. Thank you Rakas

    (Original post by internetguru)
    Really come on I joined government for interesting bills and debates this is just another typical mickey mouse idea that nobody cares about. It is a no from me.
    Well, I do think that Transport can be an interesting area to write bills on but Road Safety is a key issue that needs to be tackled. If more measures are taken to reduce road accidents and make HGV drivers aware, the vulnerable on the road (cyclists in particular) may feel more inclined to ride on the roads.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    See Notes of your party's Bill. I think £30 is highly optimistic if those figures are per vehicle.
    I found it difficult to gain completely accurate figures on this occasion, I will look into this issue further and amend the bill if necessary.

    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yay, more regulation.

    "make other regulations to ensure drivers are trained in using safety
    equipment as fitted to their vehicles, to improve the safety of cyclists,
    pedestrians and other road users;"

    Sounds... detailed.
    This is a detailed bill, you're just trying to put up a pointless & un-supported argument here. If you want to say something, make sure it's supported and valuable. Constructive criticism is what I/we need.

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Of course you could just say that all heavy duty vehicles should have those motion sensors that some new cars have. The ones that bleep when something is too close. Those are pretty cool and pretty useful.
    I think camera's are a bit extreme plus that would seriously bump up the price.

    And also forcing companies to do this within 12 months might not be realistic if a haulage company has a lot of heavy duty vehicles.
    Installing motion sensors is another option. I agree, they are cool & useful. We may remove the point on thermal imaging cameras as they have proved expensive.

    (Original post by JPKC)
    Who wrote this Bill?
    I did - it's one of my first. I agree it's not up to the standard of people with years of experience in MHoC but it's a start and pleased with what I've put together.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    Make HGV drivers aware, the vulnerable on the road (cyclists in particular) may feel more inclined to ride on the roads.
    I'm sorry have you done a HGV test? do you know what goes on through it? there is a huge part about watching out of other users. Sure some people should do their test again as they have fallen into bad habits but you are penalising those that are careful with stupid additional costs which will only push the costs of haulage up and I can tell you now that you will make the agricultural businesses I support struggle even more and I will not stand for it and I will campaign against you.

    Do you have any idea how much haulage is on average? it is too much already, you are going to choke an already choking industry even more!
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    This is a detailed bill, you're just trying to put up a pointless & un-supported argument here. If you want to say something, make sure it's supported and valuable. Constructive criticism is what I/we need.
    Sorry, but you can't write a regulatory bill and include the phrase "make other regulations..." under the "What will happen" bit. What regulations? How can you expect people to vote on regulations that haven't even been written yet? There may well be additional detail about other stuff, but not this!
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    More people are killed involving cars than any other mode of transport...
    That's hardly surprising when vastly more people drive by private car rather than HGV.. What a silly comment.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    That's hardly surprising when vastly more people drive by private car rather than HGV.. What a silly comment.
    Besides, a HGV coming at you at 50 mph is going to end in the same result as a car coming at you at 50mph.
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    When typing this bill up, the formatting was the least of my worries. If this bill gets past the first reading, I'll make sure that formatting is amended. There will be not a lot of training needed, just the equipment fitted and possibly a few days of relaxed training, nothing too intense. I do not agree that it is a 'poorly thought out' bill - this is my first bill which I put a lot of time and work into including research.
    As always I congratulate members on their first Bill so I congratulate you on your's. There's a few formatting issues so I look forward to seeing this change so I won't go further into that. Is this training going to be during days when they're meant to be at work? Isn't that going to cost the company? It is poorly thought out in that you're trying to legislate against accidents which is akin to spitting in the wind.

    I found it difficult to gain completely accurate figures on this occasion, I will look into this issue further and amend the bill if necessary.
    I look forward to seeing these changes.
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Sorry, but you can't write a regulatory bill and include the phrase "make other regulations..." under the "What will happen" bit. What regulations? How can you expect people to vote on regulations that haven't even been written yet? There may well be additional detail about other stuff, but not this!
    This a bill outlining what will happen in the 12 months, so if there will be other regulations, they will come out in the 12 months. I have to also think about the bill before writing it and I do have a life outside MHoC so it won't be released immediately.

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    I'm sorry have you done a HGV test? do you know what goes on through it? there is a huge part about watching out of other users. Sure some people should do their test again as they have fallen into bad habits but you are penalising those that are careful with stupid additional costs which will only push the costs of haulage up and I can tell you now that you will make the agricultural businesses I support struggle even more and I will not stand for it and I will campaign against you.

    Do you have any idea how much haulage is on average? it is too much already, you are going to choke an already choking industry even more!
    I'm not familiar with the haulage industry, no, and I have not taken a HGV test. Have you?

    These small costs are worth taking to improve a haulage company's reputation in business and to make sure they are meeting Health & Safety guidelines in various laws & regulations.

    What I mean by HGV by the way, is massive vehicles who clearly cannot see either side of their vehicle clearly, not agricultural vehicles as such. This is mainly affecting vehicles with blindspots.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoryS)
    This a bill outlining what will happen in the 12 months, so if there will be other regulations, they will come out in the 12 months. I have to also think about the bill before writing it and I do have a life outside MHoC so it won't be released immediately.
    That's jolly good to hear, but why's it in this bill then? You're using a bill to outline your future bills?
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    As always I congratulate members on their first Bill so I congratulate you on your's. There's a few formatting issues so I look forward to seeing this change so I won't go further into that. Is this training going to be during days when they're meant to be at work? Isn't that going to cost the company? It is poorly thought out in that you're trying to legislate against accidents which is akin to spitting in the wind.
    Thank you. The formatting issues will get resolved, but it looks like everyone in the Parliament is putting up a strong argument towards this important bill so I'm not sure if I'll get the opportunity - we'll see.

    The training will most likely take place then, it will cost the company, but it is a risk that they should be willing to take.

    I'm not legislating against accidents, I'm trying to prevent accidents from happening with just simply asking drivers to use new equipment to cause less accidents on the road. It's a simple but needed bill.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I hate any justification that tries to say that the regulation being put in place is good for the businesses. No, it never is. If it was, they'd do it anyway. The whole point of regulation is that it forces people or businesses to do things they won't do voluntarily.
Updated: April 30, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.