As long as the owners of the roads are made to pay for this out of their budgets.
Indeed, since the inception of the railways in the early 1800s there has been a massive rise in road traffic. All that was present in those days was the odd horse and cart, plus traction engines.
44 ton lorries was never envisaged for these roads. A lot of freight has switched to road because of the increase in payload weights, meaning lower costs and more profits. Yet all the time the railway is expected to pay for extra safety equipment to protect against misuse. A lot of signalboxes could be abolished and there would be considerable savings in operating costs if it wasn't for the level crossing element.
This reminds me of the 1930s when the railways were the principal rate payers in many towns, paying for lots of new roads, which the hauliers used to go into competition!
I'd be keen to know what the risk assessment is for such large vehicles, considering they kill 100s each year on the roads and are 3 times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes than cars due to a combination of size, lack of proper enforcement of drivers hours, vehicle overloading and differing foreign operating standards.
On the face of it, allowing them to mix with 1 ton cars and cyclists is madness, considering that the railway are prohibited in running mark 1 stock and illustrates one of the many inequalities of standards which should by rights be universal.
Sadly, like Paul, the media will concentrate quite possibly on what crossing protections were in place and add yet more cost on the rail network giving rails critics another way to bash it, which it should be the roads that are brought up to rail standards.
