Transport festival pledges support for Project Pictogram

12.00 | 13 March 2017 | | 7 comments

The organisers of the Truck Fest transport festival have pledged their support for Project Pictogram and issued an open invitation for road safety teams to attend any of the eight Truck Fest shows being held in summer 2017.

Launched a year ago (11 Mar ‘16), Project Pictogram encourages UK fleets to use an industry standard set of vehicle stickers to communicate the dangers of the ‘fatal four’: inappropriate speed, using a mobile phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt and drink/drug driving.

The Truck Fest shows attract 6,000 trucks, 250k visitors, and some of the ‘industry’s best driving standards display teams’.

Phil Palfrey, Project Pictogram, said: “With so many fleets in one place, and an open invitation for Road Safety GB to attend with their partnership colleagues, these events are the ideal opportunity to engage fleets with this Road Safety GB endorsed national initiative.”

Truck Fest events in 2017:

  • Peterborough (East of England Showground): 28 Apr – 1 May
  • South (Newbury Showground): 26-28 May
  • South West & Wales (Three Counties Showground): 30 June – 2 July
  • Original (Newark Showground): 14-16 July
  • Scotland (Royal Highland Showground): 4-6 Aug
  • East (Norfolk Showground): 18-20 Aug
  • South East (The Hop Farm): 1-3 Sept
  • North West (Cheshire Showground): 15-17 Sept

More details of all of this summer’s Truck Fest events can be found on the Truck Fest website.

Developed in September 2015 by the Hampshire Road Safety Partnership and promoted by Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service, Project Pictogram is endorsed by a number of the UK’s road safety stakeholders including RoSPA, IAM and the ABI.

The Project Pictogram team is aiming for the pictograms to be displayed on fleet vehicles across the UK, to provide a constant visual reminder to drivers of their own behaviour, and act as a nudge to positive change.

Councils and organisations who have signed up to Project Pictogram include Home Retail Group (Homebase), Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council and Hampshire FA.

Related stories

Drivers urged to adopt three simple habits
15 July 2016

Project Pictogram: “we need you”
11 March 2016

Project Pictogram set for official launch
10 March 2016



Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Pat. What I originally wrote was not published in its entirety. I too have difficulty believing in the 6% reduction per one mph. but mentioned it as it has been regularly used and stated and is obviously supported by the 20 is plenty organisation and as such mentioned regularly by Mr King.

    By it one could mathematically assume that if one was to reduce road speed unilaterally by 16 mph then one could in fact totally eliminate all deaths. I don’t think so either.

    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Assuming the relationship between speed reduction and casualty rate remains constant at 1mph = 6percent is on unsafe ground. That is most unlikely to be the case as other factors will come into play. Factors such as inattention/ distraction through boredom of speed limits the driver considers are too slow. Of course it shouldn’t be so, but that is reality.

    Pat, Wales
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    In Germany there is no legal upper speed limit however it is understood that 130 kph be adopted as of a norm. You have said that in Europe that many countries have a higher upper speed limit. However if one takes into account the ACPO statement of a few years ago, by increasing one’s speed by 10% plus 2 then one would not be reported for a speeding offence. That would now put our motorway speed at 79 mph or 127 kph similar to the 130 kpm of the other countries.

    On the other hand for the sake of road safety many countries have a slower top speed in the wet. That may be something we should consider over here. We are getting wetter weather and anything to slow traffic down may be an advantage. By lowering the speed limit by 1 mph it will lower the accident rate by 6%. Therefore if we lower the speed limit by 10 mph we will achieve a lowering of incidents of some 60%. If we lower the speed limit by 15 mph we can do away with almost all incidents and have a nil return as well.

    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Most other countries have higher standard motorway speed limits (or none at all, as the case may be in Germany).

    “Only Brie ignore the three second rule” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it now, right?

    David Weston, Corby
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Did you know that we are one of the only civilised countries that appreciate the importance that time between vehicles is important and adopt a 2 second rule. Most other countries have a 3 second rule.

    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Given that the campaign is aimed at road users, it seems slightly odd to have chosen to use a style of sign that is at variance with that used on the highways. Why not go with a simple red circle as a prohibition, instead of having a red circle and diagonal line to indicate that we must not do something? Is this a tacit admission that most drivers do not have a clue about the meaning of road signs?

    David, Suffolk
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Good to see at least the 2 second rule now displayed. It’s extremely dangerous for HGV drivers to be as they usually are some 20ft behind the HGV in front. It’s especially dangerous if they are behind an ordinary car and if they need to stop, require at least 3 times the distance that the car in front can stop in. On a motorway the distance is more than 2 seconds, it more like 3 seconds and in actual distance is that between two marker posts, being 100 meters or 315ft apart.

    That shouldn’t be difficult for such drivers to appreciate as they are on the inside lane, next to the marker post situated by the side of the hard shoulder anyway so they have no excuse for not keeping the distance.

    Bob Craven Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.