Speed Limits (Heavy Goods Vehicles)

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 21 February 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05086, in the name of David Stewart, on the 50 miles per hour campaign. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises the efforts of the Inverness-based HGV driver, Conor McKenna, who has set up a campaign, 50 Miles Per Hour, which aims to persuade both the Scottish and UK governments to increase the speed limit for HGVs on single carriageways from 40 to 50 mph; considers that such an increase would reduce any frustration for drivers who follow HGVs and the subsequent risks of vehicle collisions; believes that it would also shorten delivery times to businesses; understands that the UK Government has welcomed such proposals and has launched a consultation exercise in England, which, it believes, could demonstrate that such proposals would make roads safer, help hard-pressed businesses and relieve the pressure on HGV drivers to meet target times, and recognises the calls to ensure that the speed limit for HGVs in Scotland is aligned to that for England and Wales.

Photo of David Stewart David Stewart Labour

I thank the members here today for their interest in the debate and for signing my motion. For those members still to sign, I always welcome sinners who wish to repent.

The context of the debate is road safety, but I also believe that increasing the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles will improve productivity in the haulage industry, reduce the costs of production and transportation of goods, and cut prices for the end user: the customer.

What is it that I am calling for? I am calling for the raising of the speed limit for HGVs that weigh more than 7.5 tonnes from 40mph to 50mph on single carriageways. Members will be familiar with the fact that the United Kingdom Government recently ran a consultation exercise for England and Wales on this very subject and that we await the results. Members will also be familiar with the fact that the Scotland Act 2012 gives the Scottish ministers the powers to regulate the speed of all classes of vehicle.

As I am a road safety campaigner on issues such as the graduated licence scheme for young drivers, l was contacted by a lorry driver, Conor McKenna, from Inverness, whose campaign I agreed to support. Mr McKenna argued that the HGV speed limit for single carriageways frustrated other motorists and led to some to make dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

The Automobile Association chief executive, Edmund King, said:

“Drivers will generally support this proposed change as a common sense move. Slower lorries can lead to tailbacks, dangerous overtaking and road rage. Freer-flowing traffic will benefit road safety by reducing dangerous overtaking and benefit the environment by reducing emissions.”

Many members will be aware of the environmental issues. My general view is that we should be taking freight off the road and on to rail. When the Labour Party formed an Administration with the Liberal Democrats, it pursued the freight facilities grant and took much freight off the road and on to rail. I was taken by the Road Haulage Association assessment that lorries that do 50mph in higher gears produce fewer emissions than vehicles that do 40mph at lower gears. It is interesting that the policy is beneficial in terms of climate change, as well.

Neil Greig, who is the director of policy and research at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said:

“We welcome the consultation on new speed limits for lorries. On many long-distance rural roads, platooning behind lorries who are sticking to the limit is often blamed for causing frustration and dangerous overtaking. Ideally this change should be introduced in a series of trials and pilots first so that the real impact can be assessed before the change is made permanent.”

From all parts of the country the message is the same: modern trucks are perfectly capable of doing 50mph safely and fuel efficiently on suitable A roads, and raising the limit would lead to greater road safety and a reduction in death and injury. I call on the minister to pilot a trial on a cross-section of our key road network such as the A9 before making further decisions.

Truck drivers have the difficult duty of watching in their mirror long queues of increasingly frustrated drivers building up behind them. Occasionally, such drivers make dangerous manoeuvres as their patience comes to an end and the red mist comes down and clouds their judgment. Sometimes such frustration ends in tragedy. Many believe that having a higher speed limit would avoid that.

The answer is to give professional HGV drivers the latitude to drive at up to 50mph on single-carriageway roads where there is no restriction on motorists beyond the national speed limit and where it is safe to do so.

Members will be well aware that the speed limits that are currently legislated for are detailed under schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Act 1984. We are talking about a speed limit that was set almost 30 years ago when the design and safety capabilities of HGVs were very different to what they are today.

Today, HGVs have safety and design improvements in line with normal family cars and other road vehicles. Of course, the stopping distance of an HGV is more than that of a family car, but so is the stopping distance of an HGV under 7.5 tonnes, which can legally travel at 50mph on a single carriageway. We therefore have a strange anomaly. Two sizes of HGV can legally travel at different speeds, yet all cars, no matter their size, are subject to the same speed limit.

A crucial point concerns the driver. An HGV driver is technically far better trained than a normal car driver as they have to pass two separate practical and theory tests on driving and road-safety awareness. In addition, HGV drivers undertake regular sight tests, unlike car drivers. Those facts alone should surely lead us to conclude that there are far fewer road collisions involving HGVs than collisions involving other forms of transport.

I welcome the consultation exercise that has taken place south of the border in relation to this issue and, as a long-standing road safety campaigner, I urge the Scottish Government to look seriously at this issue and to consider a study on the A9 and beyond.

As Jack Semple, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association said:

“The overwhelming view of members is that the current 40mph speed limit is quite unnaturally slow on many roads and creates congestion, frustration and avoidable road safety risks for no good reason; that it is an out-dated limit. Developments in braking and other safety systems mean that HGVs on the road today are perfectly capable of doing 50mph safely and fuel-efficiently on suitable single-carriageway roads. Raising the limit would lead to greater road safety and to a reduction in death and injury.”

A new chapter in road safety is ready to be opened. To quote Sir Walter Scott, what we need is:

“the will to do, the soul to dare”.

Photo of Dave Thompson Dave Thompson Scottish National Party

I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate, which is on an incredibly important issue, and I agree with what he had to say. This is a relatively simple issue, so I apologise if I repeat and reinforce some of the points that he made.

I have initiated and sustained many discussions with a number of trade associations, local businesses, MSPs and Scottish Government ministers in support of the change that is proposed. I believe that we are moving forward.

Raising the speed limit for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes from 40mph to 50mph on single-carriageway roads is an issue of great importance to my constituency, as the A9 is the main artery connecting Inverness and the north-east Highlands with the central belt.

As David Stewart said—I have personal experience of this—the build-up of long queues of traffic behind convoys of slow-moving lorries, which is known as platooning, is a particular issue on the A9, where much of the route is single carriageway. Frustrated drivers who are stuck behind such lorries are tempted to take chances overtaking, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons why the A9 has experienced so many safety issues over the years.

I applaud the designing and planning that are currently under way to dual the A9 from Inverness to Perth by 2025—perhaps that will be completed a bit sooner; I hope that it will—but in the meantime, action must be taken to alleviate the dangerous conditions that are currently faced on the A9 and other single-carriageway roads throughout Scotland. I believe that increasing the speed limit for such HGVs from 40mph to 50mph would lead to a reduction in platooning and risky overtaking manoeuvres, which would mean that the roads would be safer for all drivers.

Beyond creating a safer Scotland, the decision would create increased revenue and savings for local businesses. According to the Department for Transport impact assessment, raising the speed limit for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes from 40mph to 50mph would create a net benefit of £454 million by 2030 throughout the UK. In addition, an increase in the speed limit would save 2.4 million man hours a year for HGV drivers and countless more for other motorists. The direct impact of the change would save UK businesses £30.6 million a year. Obviously, significant proportionate savings would apply in Scotland.

There would also be positive environmental impacts, as Dave Stewart said. The increase in the speed limit is supported by the Road Haulage Association, which has noted that the increase would mean that drivers would be able to stay in a higher and more fuel-efficient gear, which would lead to a more sustainable drive. That would mean fewer CO2 emissions not only for HGVs but for all the traffic behind them. The Malcolm Group Ltd, which is a leader in logistics, has stated:

“the vehicles of today run at their optimum level at about 50mph. At 40mph, an HGV is labouring and costs more to operate.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 7 March 2006; c 3481.]

In 2006, the freight transport inquiry that the Scottish Parliament conducted recommended that select arterial roads should incorporate the higher speed limit to test the effects of a change on traffic. A Transport Scotland project report in 2008 suggested that an experimental trial should be conducted on the A9 between Perth and Inverness to resolve the issue. It is regrettable that no action was ever taken.

The Government should be applauded for its commitment to dualling the A9 all the way to Inverness. That will deliver a huge boost to the Highland economy and road safety along the route, but in the meantime there is a strong case to pilot an increase in the speed limit on single carriageways for HGVs.

Increasing the speed limit on single-carriageway roads would have many benefits for all drivers and the wider economy, not only HGV drivers. It would also deliver an environmental boost through a more efficient average speed. I hope that the minister supports a pilot project on the A9 so that we can properly evaluate the pros and cons of such an increase.

Photo of Anne McTaggart Anne McTaggart Labour

I am delighted to contribute to this debate on the 50 miles per hour campaign, and I thank David Stewart MSP for securing the time for it. I know that my colleague has a wealth of experience in advocating on road safety issues and is well placed to illustrate the key issues that surround the important proposal.

The UK Government has welcomed the proposition to increase the speed limit for HGVs on single carriageways from 40mph to 50mph, and the proposition is the subject of a Government consultation document at Westminster. It has also gained the approval of the Automobile Association and the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which has welcomed it as a “common sense move” that would be welcomed by all drivers, not only HGV drivers. However, other groups have expressed concerns about the proposal.

The consultation document highlighted some of the advantages that such a move could bring. One such advantage would be the reduction of congestion and frustration on our roads, as members have already said. A common problem on many long-distance rural roads is the large number of cars that can potentially drive faster but are often stuck behind HGVs that stick to the speed limit. That leads to frustration for drivers, who often attempt extremely dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, which can often lead to fatalities. It has been argued that the proposals will mean that those platoons of traffic will be less likely to attempt such manoeuvres, which will, in turn, lead to fewer accidents.

In addition, it is believed that the proposals will lead to a more level playing field for freight operators. Government figures suggest that 70 per cent of UK lorry traffic exceeds the current speed limit. In such a time-sensitive industry, that gives the drivers concerned an unfair advantage over those who follow the law.

The proposal, which would affect around 280,000 vehicles, would also have obvious economic benefits. For example, it is estimated that companies would save up to 2.4 million driving hours per year and between £31 million and £36 million, making them more profitable, allowing them to take on more workers, increasing tax revenues and providing a much-needed boost to related industries such as fuel and tyre suppliers.

That said, we must acknowledge the proposal’s potential disadvantages. Increased wear and tear on the road network would mean increased repair costs for local authorities, and there is also a potential for more serious accidents. The road safety charity Brake has expressed concern, citing the direct link between traffic speed and the number of devastating crashes and casualties on our roads.

It is of utmost importance that, in considering this proposal, we carefully consider and reflect on the evidence of all its effects on road safety, the environment and the economy before we make any decision. I call on the Scottish Government to consider the experimental trial and pilot study that my colleagues have already mentioned.

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative

I congratulate David Stewart on securing this debate and I thank him for bringing this important matter to the chamber. This is one of those happy issues on which there is a degree of unanimity across the chamber. I find it difficult to disagree with anything that we have heard from the previous three speakers—although if the Greens had troubled themselves to turn up we might have heard a different perspective.

As David Stewart has made clear, the UK Government is reviewing the 40mph speed limit for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes, with the proposals subject to an extensive consultation process, and I believe that we should be doing the same in Scotland. It has been said that the A9, which is in my region, would benefit from an increase in the single carriageway speed limit for HGV; I certainly feel the same way and believe that, until the A9 is fully dualled, it will continue to have the reputation of Scotland’s deadliest road.

Accidents on the A9 are caused by a number of reasons. There are dangerous junctions, confusing switches between dual and single carriageways and the phenomenon of platooning, which has already been mentioned. When they look in their mirrors and see long queues of cars behind them, HGV drivers sometimes feel pressured by those motorists to travel over the speed limit. If they keep to the recommended 40mph, long queues often form and driver frustration can lead to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Any HGV driver caught doing 47 mph risks a fine and three points on their licence. In an industry in which a person’s licence is their living, that is causing a great deal of strain. As a result, increasing the HGV speed limit could reduce the number of fatal accidents caused by platooning and, in the interim period before the A9 becomes a full dual carriageway, such temporary solutions could provide the answer to preventing serious head-on collisions.

I understand the consternation of some road safety campaigners who, as Anne McTaggart mentioned, believe that increasing speed limits results in more accidents. However, until a trial is put in place, we will never know. At the very least, Transport Scotland should be trialling a 50mph speed limit on the A9 that, if successful, could predicate a permanent shift in that direction.

We should also look abroad to countries where an increased speed limit is in force for ideas, evidence and figures on road safety. For example, when in New Zealand the speed limit for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes was increased to 56 mph, there was an 18 per cent reduction in accidents.

As well as highlighting the safety elements of increasing speed limits, we can also make a substantial business case for such a move. Shorter, more efficient delivery times would give hauliers an advantage, and the Department for Transport has claimed that between 1.1 million and 2.4 million driving hours per year could be saved. The A9 is the main trunk road connecting the Highlands with central Scotland, so improving transportation on that main artery could be a major boon to businesses operating to and from the Highlands.

There is an additional road safety element in legislating for a speed limit change, because tired hauliers who drive over their allotted hours are a road safety danger. Increasing the speed limit on single carriageway lanes could see a reduction in hauliers’ testing the limits of their endurance; faster delivery times would result in fewer exhausted drivers.

Further, HGV drivers currently operate in a corridor of uncertainty relating to speed limits. As Anne McTaggart said, figures show that 70 per cent of all HGV drivers currently break the speed limit and that those who travel at or below the speed limit are faced with slower transportation times, which can put them at a competitive disadvantage. We should also understand that the current speed limit was introduced decades ago and has remained unchanged since then, despite improvements in technology, HGV design and stopping distances.

The move that the motion proposes would be good for the economy, for drivers, for the environment—there is evidence that it would lower carbon emissions—and, most importantly, for road safety. For those reasons, I think that we should set the wheels in motion for at least a pilot increase in HGV speeds on the A9.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

I am grateful to Dave Stewart for having gained the debate, for his comments, and for the contribution that he has made to the issue. He has made the case on the HGV speed limit on a number of occasions, as have Murdo Fraser and Dave Thompson. Fergus Ewing has also been very interested in the issue.

I take on board Murdo Fraser’s point about the lack of an alternative view in this debate. Obviously, I am not here to represent the Scottish Green Party, but I think that other viewpoints must be presented.

I gently take issue with my colleague Dave Thompson because he reckoned that the issue is a simple one. I do not think that it is that simple; I think that there is more to it than perhaps meets the eye. It is incumbent on Government before taking a decision such as the motion proposes to take into account the complexities and possible consequences of taking action.

I agree with much of what members have said on the issue. I do not want that to be forgotten as I go through some of the points that might raise issues in the minds of others.

Significant challenges face us in road safety in Scotland, as Anne McTaggart mentioned in passing. It is true that we have had the devolution of powers to the Scottish ministers to set our own national speed limits. Dave Thompson mentioned the 2008 report about which nothing had been done. However, we did not have the required powers at that time. We gained them only recently, and we now have the greater freedom that Dave Thompson and others have mentioned.

In the road safety framework that we set for 2020, we set ourselves challenging national road safety targets. We still have them in Scotland, although similar targets have been dispensed with elsewhere in the UK, or at least at Westminster. Our targets were to reduce fatalities by 40 per cent and serious injuries by 55 per cent, based on a 2004 to 2008 average.

It is worth saying that the latest confirmed figures for road casualties in Scotland—for 2011—show that the figures are at their lowest level since records began. It is also worth noting that two thirds of fatal and serious accidents involving HGVs are on A roads and that two thirds of accidents and three quarters of fatal accidents involving HGVs are on single carriageway roads. There is no guarantee that a speed limit increase would alleviate the problem of frustration and dangerous overtaking. It is worth bearing in mind that, if the HGV speed limit was raised, overtaking would continue but at a higher speed. It takes longer for a car to overtake an HGV travelling at 50mph than one travelling at 40mph.

Members have heard mention of the Transport Research Laboratory report of 2008, which had 14 recommendations for further research. As Dave Thompson said, it also referred to the possibility of considering an experimental trial of a raised speed limit for HGVs. The suggestion was that a trial could be conducted over a three-year period on the A9 between Perth and Inverness.

As I said, at the time the Scottish ministers did not have the powers to enact such a speed limit, even if they had wanted to. However, the modelling work done by the TRL on the A9 in 2009 suggests that to gain an optimum reduction in accidents we would have to install average-speed cameras and maintain the current 40mph speed limit. That is a change from the previous approach. The TRL also said that, from a road safety perspective, the best approach could be to leave speed limits as they are or even slow cars down. There is different advice even from the same organisation.

National-level modelling suggests that there are economic benefits from increasing the speed limits for trucks—a number of members mentioned that—and decreasing journey times. However, TRL said that the economic benefits are likely to be at least partially offset by greater emissions. A number of members said that they reckon that emissions could be reduced, but TRL reckoned that there would be greater emissions and lower air quality. It also suggested that economic benefits would potentially outweigh the published cost of accidents. The modelling in 2009 did not examine the impact on other road users of road closures, which could be an especially significant issue on the A9 given the lack of alternative routes.

I wanted to make the point that there are different points of view on the proposal.

Photo of David Stewart David Stewart Labour

I thank the minister for his comments. He is being very fair minded about the debate that we have had.

The consultation in England and Wales has finished and there will be a massive amount of evidence, which will also be applicable to Scotland, on air quality, speed and safety. I assume that the minister’s officials will analyse the consultation in England and Wales. What are the costs of having a Scottish consultation or a mini-pilot? I understand that there are practical constraints, but it seems to me that this is a fairly minor experiment that could have greater gains for Scotland.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

To answer the first point, I confirm that we are keen to see the evidence from the consultation that has been undertaken elsewhere as it is obviously relevant to Scotland as well. It does not follow that we should do the same as is done elsewhere, but the evidence that has been collated will be interesting, and Transport Scotland officials are looking to get it.

On the point about the pilot, I have said before in response to a point that Murdo Fraser made and separately in correspondence with Dave Thompson that we are seriously considering the matter. However, the first consideration has to be road safety. Once we get past that point, we can start to think about the costs, which Dave Stewart mentioned. One cost would arise from the establishment of average speed cameras, which we think would be essential to ensure that the change, if it was to happen, was conducted safely.

In his speech, Dave Stewart asked that we seriously study the issues. We are doing that, not least in relation to a pilot on the A9. He said that the proposal would lead to a reduction in accidents but, as I said, the evidence on that is not complete.

On the example that Murdo Fraser gave, it is worth bearing it in mind that the evidence from New Zealand does not show that increased speed limits led to a reduction in accidents. There was a continuation of a long-term downward trend in casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres, but there is no evidence that a change to HGV speed limits ensured that that continued. There was a fall in the proportion of fatalities caused by HGVs from 2006. The policy was introduced in 2004, though, and fatalities increased between 2004 and 2005 and between 2005 and 2006. There was also an increase in injuries. The evidence is not conclusive, but it is something that Transport Scotland officials have looked at and they will continue to do that.

We have to consider how we maintain safety if we are to increase the speed limit, but I am certainly open-minded on the proposal. The Government is considering it seriously, as we have been asked to do by the members who are present, but we have to do that in the context of considering safety. We have no plans to consider making changes to national speed limits or vehicle speed limits without established evidence. Separate from that, although we have no plans to do that generally, the issue of a pilot, specifically on the A9, is one that we are looking at very seriously. I am more than happy to confirm that we will keep members updated on the progress.

12:58 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—