Submission data

View the feedback we have received on the HVNL review consultation regulation impact statement paper.

Upload a file

Answer questions

Regarding option 10.3 (wider vehicles). I believe such wider allowance must be tied to improved safety, esp for fragile road users like cyclists and pedestrians.
For example, as a relatively tall pedestrian, I am worried that I will be hit by those coach’s side mirrors. These side mirrors are often at my head height, and when the coach swing into a bus stop, I am at risk. There must be width limit on these side mirrors, direct driver visibility standard, side under-run protection, etc.
These wider vehicle should be controlled under PBS too, to ensure actual performance and prevent future alteration.

Regarding option 9.1e, there should be more safety features for fragile road users like cyclists and pedestrians, similar to above. Environment benefits such as air quality should be included, too.
Regarding both option 9.1d and 9.1e, any extra length can affect the safety of fragile road users like cyclists and pedestrians, esp when the truck is turning. Such longer trucks must be managed under PBS standard to ensure safety performance and prevent future alternation.