CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Building in Safety - Truck design

(4 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by Tulyar
  • Latest reply from Darkerside

  1. Tulyar
    Member

    T&E a Brussels-based lobby group commissioned a report which highlights the fact that there (scandalously) is NO EU BASE STANDARD for direct vision of the road outside for truck cabs and also NO EU REQUIREMENT for a COLLISION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. Yet through this report they show that providing both features for a truck cab would deliver a reduction in truck operating costs and potentially halve the fatalities arising from collisions with a truck (estimated at over 3000 lives across the EU).

    Part of the problem is apparently the EU regulations defining the overall length of the truck, rather than the length of the trailer, so that trucks in the UK have the aerodynamics of a brick, and are pared back to maximise the load carrying length. Crash tests between a car and truck at relatively low speeds dramatically show cosmetic damage to the truck and a totally flattened crumple zone on the car. There is no ENCAP testing for trucks or buses, and as a result the flat front of a truck pushes pedestrians and cyclists down, rather than throws them up and to the side like a sloping front on a car. making it highly probable the wheels will then run over the victim with a fatal outcome.

    A 'cone' shaped front for a truck offers fuel savings plus better direct vision, a deflecting (to the side) of 'light' road users, and a crumple zone to save the lives of car occupants (maybe someone can find the numbers for cars run over and crushed in HGV crashes).

    Here's the report
    http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/2012%2002%20smart%20trucks%20report%20briefing_final.pdf

    Then a further paper from ECF highlights the fact that we are approaching a point in the EU legislative calendar where a wholesale revision of Truck design legislation will be taking place. Time indeed to lobby (MEP's) for taking this up?

    http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF-Cab-design-report_201112.pdf

    Finally there are trucks which hauliers COULD buy where the driver's eye-line is just 2 metres (or less) above road level and cyclists easily in direct view all around the cab. They are built with better materials (alloy steel) and carry a price premium of typically 10-15%. Most are sold to airports and local councils (for refuse trucks), but could be used elsewhere, with the potential to offer significant fuel savings for some types of truck.

    Here's the UK-made version

    http://www.dennis-eagle.co.uk/elite2

    and the German product

    http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/truck/home/new_trucks/model_range/econic/Econic/advice_sales/download_e-brochure.html

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. neddie
    Member

    the driver's eye-line is just 2 metres (or less) above road level and cyclists easily in direct view all around the cab

    That is a great idea. The cab front/sides could also have a lot more glass (yet still be strong), to make the driver feel more vulnerable and therefore less likely to take risks.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. splitshift
    Member

    basically, i agree here. The low front cabs are , generally,more expensive because the manufacturers are low volume specialists, refuse wagons and airports etc, Dennis Eagle or whatever they are called now, (look into their business past, they are always just about going into liquidation,)produce very specialised stuff, also airports etc(for example)use modified existing chassis so that the cargo( live and not ) handling vehicles can pass under aircraft and other stuff.I assume ( I know !)that their are no crash test figures for these generally fibre glass and light alloy cabs with several occupants encased in glass with a whopping big engine behind them, ready to squash em !The refuse wagons are built like that to enable the operatives easy access to mount and dismount. Like i say, I generally agree that these cabs COULD be a great idea, but suspect some major cost implications. ! Also, the higher I am then the further i can see, over the cars etc. Dont see many of these vehicles on motorways . Fuel efficient vehicles are now seriously important on our roads,hgv now come with very close coupling , streamlined and light trailers,spoilers, and skirts and all sorts to reduce drag etc. Sadly, they do look like bricks at the front,which was indeed down to uk overall length restrictions, but I now think that these have been altered or removed, so larger american , bonneted trucks which are actually lower, not including the sleeper "apartment", but do have a rather large blind spot at the front , where a pedestrian could be easily missed might be seen more often.
    Coach design , on the other hand has progressed greatly and streamlined, low frontal area vehicles are already there!, if this could be incorperated, safely and with the same capabilities as the existing vehicles, then i think that this approach may be the one addopted.
    Biggest problem is the driver who wants a big nasty scary truck !
    MOI ?
    Scott

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Darkerside
    Member

    As splitshift says, I suspect it could be argued that the higher cabs allow more economic/safer driving on motorways as the driver can see over traffic and react to traffic conditions in front. Doesn't apply if you could split you long range and urban fleets though.

    Aside - saw a video linked from Google+ recently about a new Volvo truck, braking from speed to a standstill in very little space at all. Think it was demoing some hazard-detection software. Unbelievable stopping ability. Will try and dig it out when I get home (no youtube at work...)

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin