
Is there something about these vans that makes the driver:
- a) late
- b) angry
- c) impatient
- d) aggressive
- e) all of the above?
Top three bad vans
I've even got a sub-theory regarding which type of vans are the least considerate to other road users.
In first place, it's the flat bed Transit-type builder's truck - instantly distinguishable by the broom sticking out of the upright behind the cab.

Third spot goes to Luton's finest: the Vauxhall Vivaro and its clones, the Renault Trafic (the lost 'f' is deliberate, apparently) and Nissan Primastar. Their all-round rear bumper seems to encourage a carefree, myopic driving style which other road users would do well to steer around.
I wonder if there is a difference between those that drive 'company' vans, and self-employed one-man-bands who have a vested interest in their (usually crumbling, rusty and unsafe) asset? I suppose a knackered, poorly maintained older van is just as likely to cause harm as a newer, badly driven one.
King of vans

Why must vans be capable of over 100mph? What purpose does this serve? I understand the need for a heavy-duty engine in case of large loads, but surely these high-riding vehicles aren't safe at these speeds. How would they cope with a sudden lane-change manoeuvre, for instance? Almost certain loss of control, if not loss of contact between tyres and the ground.
When I am in charge* the light van will be limited to 56mph. To combat lengthy tailbacks as van tries to overtake van on dual carriageways, they (and HGVs) will be limited to the nearside lane at all times.

What a great idea.
* never
No comments:
Post a Comment