Should DOT mandate 68mph speed limiters?

I read that the first time, and I understood it. When it comes to your personal automobile...fine. When it comes to a commercial vehicle, I'm sorry..but that's a whole new ballgame. If all things were equal, then that would be be a fine as well, but they are not. It's David and Goliath, and sometimes the rules have to be changed to keep things fair and balanced.

What if railroads adopted that same stance? I'm sure those guys are sick and tired of having to crawl through towns at 10,15,25 mph, because their speeds are so strictly regulated. They don't even have to worry about other traffic on their "roadway"...just idiots that cannot read signs or stop for signals. I'm sure they would like to get on with things too, but they know the consequences if they do not. Their job is on the line for any instance where they exceed the speed limits, and they have EOBR's to catch them too.

How about this? Forget speed limiters. One conviction for ANY speeding offense or aggressive driving act in a big truck, and it's 90 days off with a suspended license. A reinstatement fee of $500 bucks will get you back on the road, upon approval of the court. Two convictions...how about a year off with no pay, and a $1,000 reinstatement fee?

Would that be a better alternative?

You offered and I quote:

"It's the fact that I bought the truck made the payments under one set of laws and they want to punish ME for someone else's actions and make another set of laws that further strip us as a people of more rights."

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but some people do feel that driving is a right....so I like to offer the fact of the matter when that comes up.

As I do yours...

This is called debate. We all learn a thing or two in the course of debating a subject....and it benefits us all at the same time, even if there are some who simply read it.

 

I recently saw an interview with a trucker who stated that about 75% of trucks on the road today are driven by new drivers. I don’t know if that is an accurate statement, but it seem plausible after reading much in these forums.

If that is the case, and given there is no way around government intrusion. Here is my idea.

Why not make speed something you earn?

0 - 5 years driving you are governed at 58 mph.

5 - 10 you are governed at 68 mph

After 10 years of clean driving you are free to drive up to what ever the max safe speed is.

Or something like that, adjust the mph, and time to what ever seems reasonable.

This would do a couple of things.

New drivers are forced to drive slower until they become proficient. Stuck in the slow lane where they belong, and you guys who know what you are doing, would be freed up to pass, and keep traffic moving.

Experienced drivers would be in high demand, able to write their own price. And I would imagine, they would be getting the respect they deserve from companies. No one would want to be the guy that pissed off the experienced driver, and now they have to replace him, with a slow truck, and an inexperienced driver.

Likewise, companies might want to retain their drivers longer then just the duration of the signed contract. The more experienced the fleet, the more profitable.

Well that is my idea. Keep in mind my total Commercial driving experience has bee 5 months in a straight tanker, over roads I am familiar with. So I have no real idea what I am talking about.


I also think there should be a mandatory refresher course for non CDL drivers as well. I got my license at 16, and the only thing I remember about the training is the name of the pretty blond girl who sat next to me for the duration of the class.

I smoked the brakes real good my first day out with that tanker full. I was shocked at how little they did compared to a regular car. As the guy training me said through the burnt brake smell,” Your not going to brake you way out of a situation with this truck.”

I think all motorist should learn at least that about trucking.

 

I don't know how this thread got bumped to current.. but, more than a year after the most recent post, I'm gonna add my little bit of input.

Point the first: Changing speeds (in whatever manner you choose) will not change the number of accidents. Accidents per driver/vehicle has remained essentially unchanged in this country for years (allowing for changes in licensing, etc). What DOES change with speed is the severity of the accident. A wreck at 55 is far less likely to result in a fatality than one at 75. Simple Newtonian physics.

Point the second: Education could make a difference. In fact, it probably would. The problem is, in essentially no instance is proper driving actually taught. It's a rush-rush school to get you your license (as I recall, my Driver's Ed class was about 2 weeks long - in high school. One hour a day). Sure, rules of the road are touched on - but the emphasis is on the mechanics of driving.

For my money, I'd like to see the minimum licensing age for automobiles be the same as for CDL. That's not gonna happen, but I'm allowed to dream.

Point the third: We already have more than enough laws on the books to deal with this. The problem is enforcement. There are simply not enough police available (nor court time) to catch a significant percentage of the people who drive like idiots. Provide the funds for expanded police presence on the roadways - provide for consequences of their actions . Limit loopholes. Eliminate plea-bargains. Enforce the darn laws we have now

(I got tapped for following too closely back in September 07. - my fault, not paying attention. In court, they offered to make it a lesser offense. I didn't ask, they offered! WTF? I told them to (well, I was polite - I just turned them down). So I got 4 points against me instead of 2. I'm much more attentive to spacing now. )

Point the fourth: According to a person who worked at NTSB, almost all crashes are caused by drivers in the limiting 15% of the local speed ranges. That is, the fastest 15% - and the slowest 15% are the majority causes - no matter what the speed limit is. (note, this does not mean they are directly involved. Quite often they are not. But they are CAUSES).

Point the fifth: Derived from point 4. It's the *difference* in velocity that creates the problems. (as has been pointed out before, of course). If one set of vehicles is traveling at X, for what ever reason, and another set is traveling at X+[whatever] you will have a certain percentage of crashes. If you force the first set to travel at X-n, the percentage of crashes will go up, and the severity will not significantly change, because the second set is still traveling at X+[whatever].

Comment the first: I've not seen but a passing comment on the differences in driving conditions between various areas. A speed that makes sense in - for example - eastern Pennsylvania, will not be at all reasonable in Nebraska or Nevada. One size does NOT fit all.

Comment the second: Except in rare instances, local communities do not have any say in train speeds. Speed is determined by the quality of the tracks the trains run on. Remember, the railroad is private property, even at crossings. Communities can't regulate their speed any more than they could if I were out on the north 40 driving at 300 mph. They can't even force the railroad to not blow the whistle (a stupid request if I ever heard one)

(This is not to say trains don't speed - the local UP tracks are rated at 40MPH for freight, but at least once a week I see a train blow through at over 60)

Comment the third: I have zero experience in real world trucking, having just graduated from a CDL A school. But, on the face of it, it seems to me that governing the trucks down to any given speed isn't really about safety. It's about economics. I saw it pointed out here, and it was mentioned by my instructors: Most trucks get their best MPG between 65 and 70 mph. That means, obviously, that the company who sets their trucks in that range will spend less on fuel than a company who runs at 75 to 80 mph.

It was also mentioned that lower speeds save on mechanical wear and tear (tires and whatnot). More evidence, I think, that this is economics based, and not safety based.


So.. here's a thought that just hit me. Instead of penalizing drivers for being late, why not reward them for meeting a time. Think: road rally rules. Take a look at the route. Know the speed limits. Use that information to determine the exact time a driver should show up at the destination. The closer he is to that time, the greater the reward. If he's early, he gets points off. If he's late, he gets points off. Reasons don't matter (though allowances can be made for weather.. whatever. This is just a blue-sky idea anyway) Tie it into a quarterly, or even monthly, bonus.

But it still all boils down to: changing the speed of the trucks won't make a bit of difference to anything but the pocketbook of the owner.

 

Dang it man I am with you on this.You buy a truck that will run the speed limit or more then Uncle Sam wants to reset your speed.I wonder if he will pay for the dealers to do this.I bet not.

 

If you're early it counts against you the same as if you're late? If you want to look at just the speed limits to determine the exact time you should get there, then you need to drive for a month and reevaluate that. Fog, traffic, construction, missing a turn, hilly terrain, rain, snow, ice... And I know when I'm doing much over 61MPH my fuel economy suffers. I try to average at least 7.0MPG for the month and do quite well at it. This month may suffer with the PA and MO driving--the trip to CA didn't actually hurt my MPG that much.

 

CMoore

Not necessarily the same.. but if the driver is early, he either was speeding or off route. Points against.

Late.. as I said, factors could be figured in. I did mention weather, and added a 'whatever' - intended to include things like road construction and accidents.

Missing a turn is driver error. NOT a 'factor' to be figured into time forgiveness.

In any event, it's blue sky. 1) never gonna happen 2) off the cuff. if it WERE to happen, a lot of work would need to be done.

I don't need to drive for more than a day to know that speed limits are not the only measure. it's 65+ going west out of Denver on I-70. Not even an empty is gonna do 65 up that long climb to Eisenhower Tunnel. If you have a load on, it might be faster to walk.

The primary idea for the whole thing is to provide incentive for truckers to drive more safely. I just wish we could do something about the 4-wheelers.

 

Your original post was well thought out and reasoned...well done! I lean toward incentives (carrot) more than penalties (stick) as I get older. I know right from wrong and I purposefully try to do the right thing. When I went back to trucking (after about 20 years of teaching) and found a company to work for I asked for the mpg spreadsheet for my truck. My boss couldn't understand why I wanted the fuel records for it...but he did supply it. I then began to track my mpg versus the longterm average...and I was beating it consistently. Now, I know that major factors in mpg is 1) aerodynamic drag and 2) driver shifting. So, I watch my speed closely (drive no faster than the speed limit (which is 55 mph most of the time) and progressively shift the truck (if you want to read a white paper on MPG Secrets click here).

So why bring this up? Here is why...I save real money for my company on every fill-up I do and I can prove it objectively....I have the spreadsheet which demonstrates slightly more than 0.5 mpg increase in fuel mileage since I took the truck. Do you think that the company has offered to say, split the savings with me each quarter? Do you think they have dropped me an email to thank me? Do you think they have sent me a prepaid dinner for two at Ruth Chris Steak House? You already know the answer, don't you? Not a chance...They could slow down the fleet (we don't carry time sensitive materials), reward their drivers financially, have fewer accidents, and save money if they offered the incentive. Instead they choose to bit$% at drivers about fuel mileage, tickets for speeding and operating costs.

Incentives work...but managers have to have the creativity and courage to implement them to allow them to work. We are sorely lacking in creative managers in the trucking industry, IMO. Is it because they have never had seat time? Is it because they are college-kids who know everything? Or is it because they are "old dogs" who can't learn new tricks? Whatever the cause, it needs to change...efficiency and safety are two peas in the same pod.

 

In my (convoluted) opinion, Big trucks should be governed at 45 mph on the open highway -- and 35 mph in big cities.
NO exceptions.
Screw up even ONCE, and that's IT!
NO second chance.
You're OUTTA there, PDQ.
There are PLENTY of WannaBees to fill the vacant seats.

And, while they're at it -- limit the weight of a Big truck to no more than 40,000 pounds fully loaded.
NO double or triple trailer combinations either.
Forty-footers -- MAX.

And limit the legal driving time to no more than 8 hours a day --- with 30 minute breaks mandatory every 2 hours -- or 100 miles -- whichever comes first.
Charge 'em all a heafty parking fee, too.
These Big truck truckers have had it too easy for far too long. Time to tighten the thumb-screws.

Personally, I'm plum tired of messin' 'round with Big truck truckers. The time has come to get tough on 'em.

Better yet --- get ALL of those dad-gummed road hogs the hail off the highways. Who really needs 'em, ANYway?
They're just a king-sized pain in the buttox.

 

I agree with Elder Shockey ,but I feel that his measures could be enhanced.

First off,the Govt should assign a human Regulator(employed on contract by Blackwater) to ride with each driver to monitor ANY infractions (teams would actually have two Regulators on board with them so both Regulators could comply with Regulator regulations for duty/sleep cycle).

These Mobilizing Engineer Regulators would ride in the cab with their assigned Mobilizing Engineer(Driver) and if an infraction was noted by the regulator,he/she/it would use a more sleek ,chrome plated version of a Hot Shot (cattle prod) and administer an immediate 25,000 volt jolt to the genitals of the Mobilizing engineers.This would serve a two fold purpose.1. Aversion therapy...IE..If the Mobilizing Engineer flicked a cigarette butt out the window and was instantly rewarded by what felt like a mini Hiroshima
in his crotch region,his brain would be instantly programmed to the fact that"Cigarette butt flicking=BAD..In the case of Swift drivers,it may take many,many hits with the Wand of Justice before they got it .

2. Punishment...The Mobilizing Engineer would realize soon that the Wand of Justice could be used as punishment too and at the hands of less than above board and poorly trained Regulators,they would use it for punishing a Mobilizing Engineer for not stopping to eat at a particular TS that the Regulator liked to eat at or if the Mobilizing Engineer brought the Regulator back a Diet soda and he had requested regular soda and so forth and so on.

When the Mobilizing Engineer was on break in the berth,his Regulator would be too.They would lay in the bunk side by side and would be free to discuss anything they wanted to as equals during this time.They would laugh ,joke,cry and share life stories of the good times along with the bad and I can forsee kind of a weird bond devolping between them,kind of a Stockholm syndrome kind of a thing that would eventually lead to playful games of "hey,pull my finger","dirty sanchez","tea bagging" and "the dutch oven".

All violations would be sent via the Wand of Justice to a central computer and after 2000 hrs of violation free operation and attending a Govt acredited course known as Special High Intensity Training Sessions at Billy Graham's (newly built for this Govt contract) School of Everything the Govt does is Good in Butt Dribble,Arkansas, a Mobilizing Engineer would then have gained the trust of the Govt and then be eligible to install a M.E.N.P.U.T.M.B.C.M.B.V. unit under the steering column of his truck.This Unit would be manufactured in China by Onehung Lo Ind.L.L.C. and would be sold and distributed by Haliburton and installed by KBR.

This $12,000.00 unit would basically be a box with two wires running to a speed monitor(a California only model would also include a smoke detector to detect cig smoke and cost an additional $2,500).When a violation of speed was recognised by the sensor(or cig smoke on the Cali model) a spring with a boxing glove on the end of it(idea stolen from Bugs Bunny by the Asian engineers at Dung Poo)would leave the box at an approx velocity of 1100 fps and punch the offending Mobilizing Engineer in his giblets.The unit would then have to be reloaded at a Haliburton/KBR shop for the price of $7,500.00 and thereby maintaining the integrity of the aversion / punishment that the Regulators started.