Special mention should go to The Times, however, for this spectacularly ill-informed piece of flannel opinion. OK, we shouldn't forget that the purpose of a column like this is to provoke a reaction, but really, couldn't the writer have at least done some research beforehand? It would be fun to go through it and pull it apart line-by-line, but really, what would be the point? As US politician Barney Frank said of an anti-healthcare reform campaigner last week "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

Those stats are taken straight from the Select Committee's report. Yet in the very next paragraph the Committee adds: "The consensus among witnesses was that the trend towards increasing prohibition rates, observed over the last three years, represented an improvement in VOSA's targeting techniques, rather than a decrease in vehicle compliance standards generally". So far from British trucks getting worse, as Ross Clark argues, it's more that VOSA is stopping the operators that are most likely to be breaking the law, hence the higher percentage of prohibitions.

His argument on taxation is also a little misleading, In a report by the same committee, published in July this year (and referenced in its VOSA report, natch) it says, in a section on road freight, that calculating whether the transport industry pays its way are enormously difficult. The FTA argues that it does, the left-leaning Campaign for Better Transport says it pays, at best, 61% of its external costs, and Prof McKinnon says "calculations of this type are clearly sensitive to the assumptions made and the monetary values attached to imponderables such as the health effects of pollution, climate change and the value of time". In fact he argues that if you exclude congestion from the calculations that "HGVs would more than cover the infrastructure and environmental costs (with a 12% surplus)".

And then there's his mention of rail at the bottom of the piece. If there's one thing that torpedoes all his other arguments and shows that, at best, he has a tenuous understanding of the realities of freight transport, then it's this ridiculous attachment to the railways. "Why" he asks "aren't we carrying more freight by rail and waterway?"

Where to start? You mean besides the fact that they're expensive, difficult to run efficiently and there's precious little space on the railways? Some operators have made it work, sure, but like it or not, without massive government investment (which isn't going to happen) and a step-change in the way the railways are run, then road will remain the dominant mode.

Some more thoughts on rail freight here. 

Longer semi trailers are proven to both benefit the road transport industry and reduce CO2 emissions, but have received a lukewarm reception from government, even though the investment is minimal and would come from the private sector. Industry support for the technology is growing, with Iveco now backing plans for 18m semi trailers. Now, Kogel, which has already made the investment in design and manufacture of longer semi trailers, has gone into insolvency due to a dramatic collapse in demand.

Meanwhile, FedEx Express is striving to lead in the use of electric and hybrid vans. At the same time, its fleet manager says they will remain niche. A good maintenance and improvements in diesel technology, although less high profile, could be just as important in cutting emissions.

This is the problem. High-speed trains and electric vans will get the government headlines. The real solution to climate change will come from millions of less glamorous, incremental improvements to technology, which sadly receive less public attention.