Comments on: Here we go again…again…

By: E. Phil Haley

E. Phil Haley — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:50:24 +0000

Well, one thing that I hadn’t really considered in my first comment is that, presumably, if the flock is thinned by reducing, through longer and heavier truck allowances, the remaining drivers would very likely be nearer the top in experience and ability rather than the bottom. In the end, I think you’re right; thin the heard. Longer, heavier trucks = fewer trucks overall = fewer drivers. Hauling the same or more freight using fewer overall resources = higher efficiency. Not exactly “Teamster” theology but, then, no one’s ever accused the unions of promoting either excellence or efficiency.

By: Everitt Mickey

Everitt Mickey — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:54:47 +0000

I’m not sure myself any more Phil.

I’ve about come to the conclusion that truck drivers are the problem.

An example. Just this week I had to DeadHead a HUGE distance…..”as soon as I can get there”. Consequently I find my self doing the posted speed limit….and sometimes ….depending on the state….a few mile per hour faster. (60 in Illinois as a matter of fact)

It NEVER failed. I’d look in my rear view mirror and there was a truck. I’d look back a few minutes later and it was still there….and STILL there….and STILL THERE!….in the hammer lane….creeping up.

Some idiot had his cruise control set. He was going maybe one mile an hour faster than me so when he gets close he pulls out to pass. Takes him a mile, five miles….maybe ten miles (depending on terrain) to pass. In the mean time traffic backs up. Rolling traffic jam.

It doesn’t matter how fast I go. (It’s happened from fifty in the east to 75 in the west) but this always happens sooner or later.)

It’s obviously not safe. It’s obviously not necessary.

Why do they do that?

I’ve about decided we need to “thin the flock”. Get rid of the morons , have fewer heavier, longer trucks…..fewer drivers.

Slower, heavier, looonger trucks would get freight there cheaper.

Couldn’t be any more dangerous than those morons.

By: Kid Cleveland

Kid Cleveland — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:57:10 +0000

slower truck interact with faster cars an the cars will cut you off to get to where they think they need to be.You have to start some where an is it to be a road train?They don’t use road trains in town you think that will happen here?The roads are not built to hold the weight that is being asked of them.Had the roads been uprated when this first came up back in the early 80′s it would be a reasonable thing to talk about.You want to be the one going down with a bridge to prove my point?

By: E. Phil Haley

E. Phil Haley — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:50:46 +0000

The thing is, Everitt, what he’s talking about here has little or nothing to do with heavy haul. The 97000 lb limit is intended to apply, as I understand it, to mainstream drivers pulling 3 axle, 57 foot (and, possibly, longer), trailers. Ostensibly, this would include drivers with limited experience.

You’re thinking, I believe, that the heavier trucks would be operated by more experienced drivers and I’m just not sure that’s going to be the reality.

While I agree that one heavier truck, moving at 55, is more efficient than two lighter trucks traveling at 70 mph, you still have to factor in the potential for increased accidents per ton-miles traveled, even minor ones, with average drivers pulling long, heavy, trailers. Accidents and their corresponding downtime are notoriously inefficient.

But I do agree with you regarding the speed limits. There is simply no way that a legitimate argument can be made supporting the assertion that it’s safer to drive 70 mph as opposed to 55 mph. Simple physics, energy = mass * velocity squared, would indicate that an increase in speed is of more consequence than an increase in weight – in the event of an accident. No matter whose fault a collision might be, the faster the truck is moving, the released energy potential increases geometrically.

Of course, this same equation is the reason that heavier trucks need to travel at a slower pace; less energy is transferred to the roadway, at a given weight, when the vehicle moves at a lower velocity.

Split speed limits, in my opinion, aren’t a great idea but, and, again, it’s just an opinion, maybe setting 65 mph as the upper limit for all vehicles is a better idea than 70 or 75.

By: Everitt Mickey

Everitt Mickey — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:44:34 +0000

Not…I repeat NOT going to get into an argument…

but….two things.

1. I’ve been hauling oversize for fifteen years. I’ve been hauling HEAVY/oversize for ten. No accidents, no claims. No moving violations.

2. It seems that just about every other driver I talk to says something like….”When I drove Oversize/overweight..(isn’t the speed limit on the watermelon 500 set at double nickle?)..yadda yadda”….and then they try to tell me how to do my job. But theyre not CURRENTLY hauling oversize….

Why is that?

But back to my comment. Overweight is NOT necessarily dangerous. I gross over a hundred MOST of the time. One forty might be a set of double 53′s (about) loaded to the max with one tractor. Say…a “B” train.

Comment:

Austraila has been running “Road Trains” for years.
New York has been running “TurnPike Doubles” for years.
The western states have been running LCV’s for years. (note…I haven’t mentioned “wiggle-wagons”)

The safety record of each is better than Industry Average. MUCH better than the yo-yo who…. “Two weeks ago I could’nt even Spell Truck Driver….Now I ARe ONe”.

I’m all for fewer trucks on the road….less numbers but higher quality. I’m actually wondering why the Austrailian Road Train wouldn’t be a good idea here. Why piddle with a mere 97K? How about twice that?

Every day I see………..well never mind.

Let’s just put it this way….with over two million miles under my belt I’m becoming more and more convinced that the turtle is better than the hare. Drive 55 and arrive alive.

One road train at fifty five beats several hot rods in all manner of speaking. Safety (cause no rookie is going to drive it) fuel effeciency, (figured on a ton/mile basis) emissions, etc, etc. etc.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:31:40 +0000

Totally agree. Company I used to contract with drove double flatbeds and the wreck ratio for those was just off the charts – and they drove them with selfishness in mind, not the drivers. I’ll try and spread the word Marshall. Take care everyone.

By: Marshall J. Gruskin

Marshall J. Gruskin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:49:44 +0000

Let me see if I understand your question. So. Why it is “such” a good idea for two trucks at 80K moving at 70 mph versus 1 truck at 140K moving at 55 mph? Which would be more “efficient?” Do I have it right? If so, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “efficiency”, but has everything to do with SAFETY. 70 is too fast and 55 is to slow on the interstate. The truck weighing 140K should be allowed to move at the same speed as every other vehicle. In fact, I want a heavy permitted load to move down the interstate with an escort as fast as possible. When I drove oversized/overweight military loads – I once moved a 120 ft pool bridge under escort to Atlanta – I drove 70 not 55. I was advised by the Georgia DOT to “move that thing” as fast as possible so as not to lumber down the highway and tie up traffic. I have no problem with an oversized/overweight load moving at 55 as long as it doesn’t take up 2 lanes, backs traffic up and pisses other drivers off. The problem is dual speed limits are unsafe and INEFFICIENT.

By: Everitt Mickey

Everitt Mickey — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:23:09 +0000

So. Why is it such a good idea for two trucks grossing eighty thousand each to be going down the highway at seventy or so mph vs ONE truck grossing ….say….one forty thousand going down the highway at maybe….fifty five?

As an exercise for the student which vehicle would be the more efficient?