Tractors on the roads
By Primal Sneeze ~ August 7th, 2008. Filed under: Builders, Driving, Farming, Law, Politics, RSA.
In early July, the Road Safety Authority announced the release of a consultation document on the use of agricultural and works vehicles on public roads.
Head of the RSA, Noel Brett, said among the problems identified is that a 16-year-old can drive a tractor and trailer weighing more than 30 tonnes without a driving test and he was concerned that the vehicles themselves are not officially checked for road-worthiness.
What bolt of inspirational lightening struck Mr. Brett to prompt him question the suitability of archaic legislation in today’s world? Had he been en-route to a holiday resort in Damascus when suddenly he felt compelled to rush back to base, losing his deposit, and tell everyone there was something wrong? Fek it, lads, I’ve just realised these laws are so old, God could have legally driven a tractor when he was in short trousers.
The press release ended with a link to the RSA website from were the document could be downloaded. That I couldn’t locate it on the site for days didn’t surprise me – the RSA, like all State quangos, commonly adopt (to use an agricultural term) a cart before the horse approach.
It appeared a few days later, though was still difficult to find and the inclusion of so many paragraphs of statutory regulations made it not unlike the Lisbon Treaty on both counts.
A child could tell you it is wrong for a child to be driving a high powered vehicle on a public road. A child, seeing a tractor pulling a 30 tonne load hurtle toward it at 40km/h might cry out mammy, mammy, will it stop? That is clear. So what is the fuss about? What is really behind this proposed legislation discussion document?
A lot. A heck of a lot in fact.
Why do Irish farmers use, or appear to use, the public roads more frequently that their European counterparts? Historically, Irish farms were small for a number of reasons that I won’t bore you with here. To enlarge a farm meant purchasing more land, obviously, but the likelihood of securing adjacent holdings was slim. Farms became disjointed parcels. Land swaps, championed by Mary Coughlan during her time as Minister for Agriculture, designed to avoid the purchase and sales taxes, proved unworkable in the main. Bottom line: To get their work done, farmers have to use the public roads. Drawing comparisons with the UK, as the RSA do, is not comparing like with like (and is one of my pet hates).
It is patently obvious that agricultural contractors must use the roads to get to and from the numerous farms they work on and to haul produce (silage, grain etc.).
Infrastructure improvements in recent times has resulted in the construction of new roads with little or no provision made for agricultural traffic – new one opened, old one closed. Upgraded roads resulted in increased traffic volumes and speeds. The number of farmers using these routes has not increased but the number of motorists seeing them has, leading to a perception it has.
The use of farm tractors by the construction industry has distorted this further. Not only are they perfectly suited to the rugged terrain of building sites but they are capable of relatively high road-speeds – the MB-trac which ceased production in ‘91 had a rating of 40km/h but with some mechanical know how could be cranked up to 65km/h. 50km/h is the standard in today’s mid- to high-range tractors and the horsepower is sufficient to pull loads that articulated trucks do.
But the big bonus is they can be registered as works vehicles. This means far lower tax, insurance and more importantly, they can be run cheaply on rebated fuel (green diesel). Who can blame them? The cost savings are enormous.
Seeing what the builders were doing, some farmers and agricultural contractors began using their machinery in the off-season to transport construction materials and supplies. Who can blame them? The more hours an expensive machine can be worked the sooner it pays for itself.
It is the pseudo-farm tractors that the road users encounter most and that made the small child cry out.
The most crying is being done by another group – the road hauliers. They are required to be licensed, to pay higher tax and insurance, to use non-rebated fuel (white/road diesel), to equip their trucks with tachographs, to employ drivers with higher standard driving licenses, and so on. Who would blame them crying? They are the ones losing out most.
They are also a very strong lobby group. Is the RSA pandering to a strong group financially disadvantaged in this instance? Is the Road Safety Authority really concerned with a safety issue at all or is there political manoeuvring afoot? Let the hauliers have their way with this and they’ll give in on something else the RSA want implemented.
It is the safety aspect that is puzzling me:
- When founded in 2006, one of the RSA’s first projects was to review all legislation as pertaining to road safety. Aborted holiday in Damascus aside, how come they are only realising now about the issue of 16-year-olds driving tractors on the public roads on learner permits? Did it not occur to them during the revamping of the rules-of-the-road booklet?
- If the road-worthiness of agricultural vehicles is of such concern (and the farmers agree it is) why not also be concerned that road haulage vehicles are, for all intents and purposes, self-certified for road-worthiness? Any garage, or indeed, haulier, can be licensed to certify vehicles.
- Is a slow-moving vehicle on the public a hazard? The RSA say it has concerns about tailbacks caused by tractors on public roads but has no suggestion for how to address this. What are they really saying here? Is it that, yes, fatal and non-fatal collisions do happen, but the fault lies generally not with the tractor driver but with the absolutely horrendous driving standards of motorists? But they can’t say that. That would be admitting that 99% of Irish motorists, let’s face it, couldn’t drive a lawnmower never mind a car. Rather than forcing drivers to be alert to potential hazards it is easier to remove the hazard. No suggestion for how to address this is a prompt to the public to call for a tractor-ban.
- Are they concerned about a slow-moving digger or other works machine? The discussion document states the following: As they generally do not carry goods or pull a trailer, they do not give rise to any competitive issues in relation to road haulage however there are road safety issues to be considered. Note their concern for the haulage industry. Since when are competitive issues the concern of a safety authority?
Have you sent this post to the RSA?
You should.
It is a clear and fair review.
@aonghus – I probably don’t have to – Someone from the RSA office read the post not long after you did.
I still think it would be no harm to bring it formally to their attention, so to speak.
so when that reader from the RSA came in did the that monkey in the corner say “Ah How’ya RSA”
I’ve seen kids as young as 10 driving tractors (not typically on the road but scary stuff all the same!)
@aonghus – I already had my submission to the RSA drafted before I wrote this. But no, it has not been sent yet. I didn’t have the heart to face being ignored yet again – My submission on the revised Rules of the Road to RSA was not even acknowledged. Submissions from the general public are welcomed my arse!
@Quickroute – Sadly, the monkey in the corner didn’t notice in time.
I admit to have driven tractors from the age of about 12. But never on the road. The farmers knew there were dangers – they didn’t want their machinery wrecked!
Spot on, Mr Sneeze. A powerful tractor doing about 30mph through a local town lost its trailer which then careered on, totalling two cars. Pure luck no one was hurt.
@Conan Drumm – More detail please: Farm boy? Construction worker? Hauling what? And what weight load?
No hitch should give under the maker’s specified tolerances. Farming folk pulling loads of stone never realise it’s ‘heavier’ than grain. Construction folk forget farm machinery is designed for farm work.
I was amazed when I got my full license to find that I was now entitled to drive a tractor. I hadn’t realised that tractors had any similarities to cars, bar the fact that they both have wheels.
The last point in your post floored me. I can’t believe the discussion document actually mentions road hauliers in that manner.
@Ann – Tractors are totally different. Here’s another one: Unless it has been changed recently, the W (tractor) grade allows you drive a mobile crane. Imagine the weight of them and the length, never mind they are mostly left-hand drive. More like artics.
The emphasis on road hauliers is what disgusts me about the whole thing.