Why so much van usage?

[Speshact]

I've just returned from a few days in the Netherlands. It wasn't school holiday time so a normal working week. I saw a lot fewer buses (logical - people cycle instead; no bus subsidy for school children needed etc.). I saw very few taxis or mini-cabs (logical - you use your bike or hire a bike at the rail station). There weren't any potholes as the roads aren't subjected to the same volume of heavy vehicles as here.

I saw relatively few vans being used. So, do tradespeople in the UK really need to use their vans as often as they do? Are there any companies/ solo traders that are exemplars of reducing van usage?

[rogerzilla]

Vans were briefly taxed if you took them home at night, but then the tax was abolished, so it's a cheap company car and people drive them on personal business as a perk.

This is, of course, Very Wrong from a CO₂ and road space POV.

[mrcharly-YHT]

as the roads aren't subjected to the same volume of heavy vehicles as here.

They have a network of large, deep canals and still use them to ship heavy bulky goods around. Helps that the country is flat hence hardly any locks.

[clarion]

I've been thinking about this.  Is it negligent to use a van when a normal car could be used, creating less damage to roads and climate, and offering much better all-round visibility to help proteect vulnerable road users?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I've been thinking about this.  Is it negligent to use a van when a normal car could be used, creating less damage to roads and climate, and offering much better all-round visibility to help proteect vulnerable road users?

There is no difference between the amount of damage per vehicle caused to roads by vans and cars.

[clarion]

Is there not?  I thought it was the fourth power of the axle loading, so a heavier vehicle makes a significant difference.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Is there not?  I thought it was the fourth power of the axle loading, so a heavier vehicle makes a significant difference.

Car axles are so light that 'effectively' no damage is caused, vans are in the same category.  The durability of roads is measured in 'equivalent HGV axles'.  No van even gets close to that sort of axle loading.

[clarion]

Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed saepe cadendo

Though I confess Ovid never saw a white van, lucky fellow.

[philip]

Car axles are so light that 'effectively' no damage is caused, vans are in the same category.  The durability of roads is measured in 'equivalent HGV axles'.  No van even gets close to that sort of axle loading.

I thought the "fourth power law" as an empirical rule-of-thumb obtained from testing done in the US. I know it's not exact, but is it really that limited? This (random page on the internet)
Equivalent Single Axle Load - Pavement Interactive
has Load Equivalency Factors for axle loads down to just under one tonne per single axle. That's comparable to a small van isn't it?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

This (random page on the internet)
Equivalent Single Axle Load - Pavement Interactive
has Load Equivalency Factors for axle loads down to just under one tonne per single axle. That's comparable to a small van isn't it?

A large car has similar axle loads to a van.  All of them have virtually no effect on a road's durability.

[clarion]

If that were true, then the roads that don't carry lorries (and there are a great many) would last forever.  As it is, they don't.  Many of them get badly damaged, particularly once there has been frost damage.  On the other hand, the weather can have more of an impact where vans particularly have afected the surface.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

OK, I give up, you win.

I have only trained as a civil engineer, have studied pavement design and have worked for a highway authority.  Somebody who uses the roads as a cyclist or driver knows more about road design and maintenance than anybody like that.

Heavy traffic loadings damage roads, water (particularly frozen water) damages roads if it gets under the surface.  Lightweight traffic merely scrubs off poor surfacing and worsens already existing damage caused by other factors.  If water doesn't get under the surface and only lightweight traffic (cars and vans) use a properly-designed road, it will last for many decades.  But you can believe what you like.

[clarion]

OK, I give up, you win.

No.  I'm not trying to just score points.  I'm trying to explore the issue.

I have only trained as a civil engineer, have studied pavement design and have worked for a highway authority.

It's good to hear you're coming at this from a professional perspective.  I'd make the slightly cheeky comment that a lot of highway engineers seem to know bugger all, but that's mainly about design & usage rather than construction, and, anyway, I know you're an intelligent and thoughtful person, so I respect your qualifications and experience.

Heavy traffic loadings damage roads, water (particularly frozen water) damages roads if it gets under the surface.  Lightweight traffic merely scrubs off poor surfacing and worsens already existing damage caused by other factors.  If water doesn't get under the surface and only lightweight traffic (cars and vans) use a properly-designed road, it will last for many decades.

OK.  I believe that may be true.  The examples I've seen may just be of poor construction or repair, which are more susceptible.  There are a great many I can think of, not least my parents' road.

I still believe that, given the same payload, a van's loading is greater than that of a car, and thus there will be more damage.  However, if the damage caused by cars is not significant, then that of vans may not be particularly increased, except in the case of poorly constructed roads.

That was not my principal point anyway.  I was more concerned for our sakes about the wilful choice of a vehicle with impaired visibility when it is not necessary.

[Jaded]

I understood (from a highways engineer) that one of the biggest issues with potholes was the combination of water and cracks, rather than the frost damage. Wider tyres (like on most cars now) and heavier weights (like on most cars now) mean that a car tyre going over a small crack filled with water creates a large pressure that blasts the edges on the crack. In this way a crack can become a pothole in a few hours. Before we had large cars with large tyres we tended to drive round imperfections in the road. And we drove a lot less, of course.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

The cracks come from either heavy axle loads or from freezing.  The hydraulic damage from tyre impact is worsening of an already created pavement failure.  A cracked road surface without potholes doesn't look as though it has failed to the casual eye but it has already failed, as far as a highway engineer is concerned.

[bobb]

I've been thinking about this.  Is it negligent to use a van when a normal car could be used, creating less damage to roads and climate, and offering much better all-round visibility to help proteect vulnerable road users?

That's a bit harsh. A friend of mine uses his van for family outings and stuff. He absolutely needs his van for work (you can't deliver large pieces of furniture you've just made in anything smaller than a tranny van) and the only reason he doesn't use a car at other times is simple: he can't afford to run a van and a car. It's not ideal, but this isn't an ideal world.....

Edit: When he knows he won't need the van on a particular day, he cycles to his workshop 

[Regulator]

A lot of people are also buying 'commerical' vehicles with no intention of using them for business purposes because of the tax differentials.  These tend to be the 'pick up' trucks you see bombing around...

[Zoidburg]

Why so much?

Construction and maintanance work replaced factory work in a lot of places, thats why you see so many vans. If you want the work you have to chase it, that means a van.

Most newish diesel vans are no more poluting than family cars.

[pcolbeck]

Also so much stuff has been outsourced that these days nearly every maintenance job is done by an external contractor who has to bring all his stuff to site.

[Zoidburg]

A lot of outfits that sell stuff, often in the construction and engineering industry are chasing trade as well.

An awful lot are delivering stuff all over the place FOC, often small items that they are in fact making a loss on after delivery, they are doing that just to hold onto account customers.

"Can I have X dropped off to site today?"

"Well thats a bit out of our way..."

"Well *insert merchants name here* said they would do it for free etc etc"

[Domestique]

I always thought it was against tax laws to use a company van for other uses than work 
There does seem to be far more vans on the road in the UK than what I have seen in mainland europe.

[thing1]

For capital costs at least, it's more to do with the payload of the van rather than what you use it for. When we were talking with the VW commercial vans folks they explained they sold more transporters to tradesfolk as these could be claimed against VAT, whereas a caddy van couldn't. No idea on the rules for fuel and maintenance tax claims.
It seems reasonable to use such a vehicle for occasional personal use, if the alternative is owning two vehicles and the construction carbon-footprint this entails, plus potential road space wastage of parking them both.


I always feel that roads deteriorate more quickly when under tree cover - I figured this is because the rain falls in more concentrated streams off the leaves than the random pattern when hitting it directly. Is there any truth in that? And do roads in the Netherlands have less tree cover than your average british country road?

Also, I believe some countries require utility companies to pay for completely re-paving a road after digging it up. Is NL such a country? (I was only away of switzerland doing this; presumably they need to because of having more frost damage). (I would hope another benefit of such a system, besides better quality roads, would be that utilities would club together and do work in batches, reducing overall closure time)

[innesh]

I'm sure that's wrong about reclaiming VAT on smaller vans - I could buy any van (even a tiny hatchback with no windows type) and reclaim the VAT.

There is a tax break somewhere to allow the purchase of a certain size (payload) of vehicle and reclaim the VAT - hence the popularity of 4x4s with a rear seat and two extra rear doors, but with a short load area.  If they can carry 1 tonne they are commercials, if they can't, they are cars and taxed as such.  Or something like that.

But I do agree about tree cover - it somehow affects the surface and I suspect it is because the road stays wet.  And it's not only tree drips - anywhere the road stays wet you will soon see a hole.

[thing1]

If they can carry 1 tonne they are commercials, if they can't, they are cars and taxed as such.  Or something like that.

Yeah, that was about the gist of it. I didn't pay attention as (a) I wasn't looking at transporters and (b) I can't claim VAT either way

[Diver300]

Anything taxed as a van is subject to lower speed limits on national speed limit roads, but it's the same limit on motorways.

Not that you can tell...........