Scroll to see more
View the feedback we have received on the Reforms to Heavy Vehicle National Law Consultation Regulation Impact Statement paper.
There are values in creating a 'better' CML as an incentive for mass accreditation, road safety and pollution control. Road wear is highly sensitive to overloading, and the mass accreditation helps with reducing the risk of overloading. Cutting the risk of overloading also reduce the risk to old bridges that are sensitive to heavy trucks.
Alternatively, all heavy vehicle operators can take up the mass accreditation as part of their license requirement, so everyone can use CML.
Alternatively, all heavy vehicle operators can take up the mass accreditation as part of their license requirement, so everyone can use CML.
I find it interesting this RIS found 'there is limited information to assess the impacts of potential height increases across the road network on road infrastructure'. In the same report it has copied the NSW Over height taskforce media release, which already listed four overheight incidents in just one month. The incident at Cooks River Tunnel clearly cost society more than the $91k (or $728k) suggested saving in this RIS. When over height trucks are already hitting well known and signposted infrastructure in the road network, how would an increase in higher trucks be a net positive to society?
The general Road Rule obligation to safely navigate the road network, and adding more warning lights and signs are unlikely to help. Just look at Montague Street Bridge at Melbourne, with its warning signs, warning lights, and warning bars above the road. Someone has made a web page to count 'how many days since Montague Street Bridge has been hit?', and it would be lucky to last more than 100 days hit free.
Also, a lot of truck roll over crashes occurred at roundabouts, where the consequence to other road users can be catastrophic. This is a low possibility, high consequence risk that would be made worse by increasing height limit to 4.6m
Instead, to reduce the permit burden and uncertainty on the ~2000/year 4.6m height applicants, it would be better to add more road with 4.6m pre-approval.
The general Road Rule obligation to safely navigate the road network, and adding more warning lights and signs are unlikely to help. Just look at Montague Street Bridge at Melbourne, with its warning signs, warning lights, and warning bars above the road. Someone has made a web page to count 'how many days since Montague Street Bridge has been hit?', and it would be lucky to last more than 100 days hit free.
Also, a lot of truck roll over crashes occurred at roundabouts, where the consequence to other road users can be catastrophic. This is a low possibility, high consequence risk that would be made worse by increasing height limit to 4.6m
Instead, to reduce the permit burden and uncertainty on the ~2000/year 4.6m height applicants, it would be better to add more road with 4.6m pre-approval.
Relaxing the general length limit to 20m would reduce the incentive to use the safer PBS truck designs. It would also encourage future request for special length exemptions, such as for forklift and waste trucks.
The best way to mitigate the risk from 20m trucks is to direct such applicants to PBS pathway.
The best way to mitigate the risk from 20m trucks is to direct such applicants to PBS pathway.
Cumulative increase of general mass, length and height limit would increase of risk of overloading. Too may operators still work on the method that 'if it fits, it is OK'. The lack of On Board Mass means the operators are often unaware of the resultant mass of the vehicle, leading to overloading.