Submission

Scroll to see more

View the feedback we have received on the Reforms to Heavy Vehicle National Law Consultation Regulation Impact Statement paper.

Regarding Option 3A, would a timeframe of 14 days or 28 days be more appropriate? Please provide reasons for your answer. Simply having a timeframe for road side enforcement would be a good thing. Shouldn't roadside intercepts be focused on the drivers "current" or "now" status and that they are safe to continue on.
14 days would be plenty.

Do you have any comments on the cumulative impact of increasing general access limits for vehicle mass, length and height? Please give reasons and evidence where possible. I choose to run older equipment. I would like to see the overall length increase (19 to 20 meters) so I can run a bonneted truck with better driver sleeping facilities on a existing 19 meter b double set. This would increase the flexibility in my fleet so not to have to retain an extra short chassis prime mover on a particular trailer set. the overall combination length - does it really mean anything? surely its the front pin to rear of rear trailer that is the important measurement.
The benefits of flexibility would also flow through to the used truck market - not being stuck at a certain short chassis length opens up more options, brands models configurations etc for that particular set of trailers.
I assume this proposal will also include 19 meter B double (under 50 tonne routes - general access) to increase to 20 meter overall length although it is not currently discussed in the impact statement?