Bill to raise Truck weights to 97,000 lbs is insane.

[Missourian]

Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights





Four U.S. senators have introduced legislation to allow states to increase truck weights to 97,000 pounds.


The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, S 747, represents the renewal of a failed effort to get the same bill passed last year. Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), sponsored the legislation.


A companion bill, H.R. 763, was introduced in the House in February.


The Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a carrier and shipper group that includes American Trucking Associations, described the bill as “a carefully crafted proposal that gives each state the option to selectively raise interstate weight limits.”

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=26493

Bullcrap.

97,000 lbs is too heavy, it's not safe and will destroy roadways and interstates.

80,000 is all the trucks brakes and road surface can handle.

Call or email your Senators to vote against S. 747.

 

[Missourian]

WASHINGTON, April 20, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American voters say they are overwhelmingly opposed to allowing bigger, heavier trucks on our nation's highways, according to a national survey released today. Conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), the survey found public opinion is strongly against proposals being pushed by some large trucking companies asking Congress to raise the national cap on truck size by 20 percent to 97,000 pounds from the current limit of 80,000 pounds.


The survey found that voters "overwhelmingly and consistently oppose allowing bigger, heavier trucks on American highways," with nearly three quarters, or 72 percent, of registered voters opposing such an increase, and half of those surveyed, 49 percent, said that they strongly opposed the idea. The survey also found that the opposition stems from public concerns about the increased threat of accidents posed by heavier trucks, as well as increased highway damage, added traffic congestion and potential tax hikes to pay for highway damage.


"What we heard is that Americans simply don't want bigger, heavier trucks, because they're worried about the safety of these vehicles on the road," said CABT spokesperson Curtis Sloan. "Taxpayers also don't want to be left holding the bag when it comes time to pay for road damage."

Americans Say Bigger Trucks Threaten America's Roadways, Greater Taxpayer Burden -- WASHINGTON, April 20, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

 

[Missourian]

1 in 9 highway bridges in the U.S. are classified as "structurally deficient," requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement. Is your state doing a good or bad job at maintaining these vital pieces of infrastructure? Where are these bridges located? Our interactive map allows you to map all the deficient bridges within 10 miles of any U.S. address, view a national report and 51 state reports and a full national ranking of state bridge condition.

Transportation For America

Check out the interactive map, it's amazing how many bridges are unsound already.

 

[whitehall]

Trucking companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats say they are part of the corporate rich and should be taxed to death and diesel prices keep going up while Obama says "get a smaller car if you don't like it". America needs trucks to get the goods delivered and keep the prices down and every time republicans try to give them a break the socialists step in to prevent it.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.

A 97,000 pound truck in 2012 will stop in how many feet?

Is that equal to an 80,000 pound truck in 1980?

Something like that would make or break this one for me. The bridge statistics are a good point against it.

 

[martybegan]

I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.

A 97,000 pound truck in 2012 will stop in how many feet?

Is that equal to an 80,000 pound truck in 1980?

Something like that would make or break this one for me. The bridge statistics are a good point against it.

One also needs to know PSF of the trucks, as this is what affects the roadway. If more tires are added, while you get additional friction effects, the PSF is lowered.

I would assume these trucks are mostly for long haul, and would be predominant only on the interstates in the middle of the country. a 97,000 truck requires multiple trailers I think, and those are unwieldy in urban situations, requirng depots for break-down when they enter thier destination city.

 

[Missourian]

Trucking companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats say they are part of the corporate rich and should be taxed to death and diesel prices keep going up while Obama says "get a smaller car if you don't like it". America needs trucks to get the goods delivered and keep the prices down and every time republicans try to give them a break the socialists step in to prevent it.

I own trucks and I drive a truck.

80,000 lbs destroys equipment, damages the road and reduces fuel mileage by 15%.

An 80,000 lbs truck takes 400 feet to stop at 55 mph.

That's 100 feet longer than a football field.

Adding 17,000 lbs will increase stopping distance to almost TWO football fields.


Truck drivers oppose this increase.

Owner-operators oppose this increase.

The driving public opposes this increase.

Hauling More Weight Safer More Fuel Efficient – Says Who

“Supporters of this bill are the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a group of more than 150 manufacturers and associations. The associations that make up this group are mainly made up of Forestry associations in which for years have tried to get it allowed so they can haul more weight, mainly because they get paid by the weight that they haul. I’m surprised by the support of this because of so many that are against “clear cutting” of timber for paper. But truthfully this is mainly what these associations that support this do.”

Read more about Hauling More Weight Safer More Fuel Efficient – Says Who on:
Hauling More Weight Safer More Fuel Efficient – Says Who​

 

[Missourian]

I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.

A 97,000 pound truck in 2012 will stop in how many feet?

Is that equal to an 80,000 pound truck in 1980?

Something like that would make or break this one for me. The bridge statistics are a good point against it.

One also needs to know PSF of the trucks, as this is what affects the roadway. If more tires are added, while you get additional friction effects, the PSF is lowered.

I would assume these trucks are mostly for long haul, and would be predominant only on the interstates in the middle of the country. a 97,000 truck requires multiple trailers I think, and those are unwieldy in urban situations, requirng depots for break-down when they enter thier destination city.

All shippers will load more product, every road will be affected.

This is the single trailer weight being increased. The bill proposes adding a sixth axle.

 

[Zander]

Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.

 

[martybegan]

I am rather uneducated on this one. To come up with an opinion I need more information.

A 97,000 pound truck in 2012 will stop in how many feet?

Is that equal to an 80,000 pound truck in 1980?

Something like that would make or break this one for me. The bridge statistics are a good point against it.

One also needs to know PSF of the trucks, as this is what affects the roadway. If more tires are added, while you get additional friction effects, the PSF is lowered.

I would assume these trucks are mostly for long haul, and would be predominant only on the interstates in the middle of the country. a 97,000 truck requires multiple trailers I think, and those are unwieldy in urban situations, requirng depots for break-down when they enter thier destination city.

All shippers will load more product, every road will be affected.

again, is this for a single trailer or multiples? also the law allows the states to set the limits. I would assume high density crappy infrastructure states like NY would keep the lower limits.

One size fits all regulation makes little sense. One has to adjust to the situation locally in cases like this.

 

[Missourian]

One also needs to know PSF of the trucks, as this is what affects the roadway. If more tires are added, while you get additional friction effects, the PSF is lowered.

I would assume these trucks are mostly for long haul, and would be predominant only on the interstates in the middle of the country. a 97,000 truck requires multiple trailers I think, and those are unwieldy in urban situations, requirng depots for break-down when they enter thier destination city.

All shippers will load more product, every road will be affected.

again, is this for a single trailer or multiples? also the law allows the states to set the limits. I would assume high density crappy infrastructure states like NY would keep the lower limits.

One size fits all regulation makes little sense. One has to adjust to the situation locally in cases like this.

Single trailer.

 

[whitehall]

Something is very fishy about this issue. The DOT has about a thousand hot shot college kids with calculators ready and willing to determine the risks related to breaking distance and weight ratio and there are another thousand federal employees who do nothing else but calculate bridge strength and the potential for road maintenance related to truck weight. More people are probably killed by high school girls texting their boyfriends while driving than heavy trucks. The senate can dump the bill and Obama could veto it. Why worry about it at this stage? Maybe republicans have a good idea?

 

[Missourian]

Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.

Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

 

[Missourian]

Something is very fishy about this issue. The DOT has about a thousand hot shot college kids with calculators ready and willing to determine the risks related to breaking distance and weight ratio and there are another thousand federal employees who do nothing else but calculate bridge strength and the potential for road maintenance related to truck weight. More people are probably killed by high school girls texting their boyfriends while driving than heavy trucks. The senate can dump the bill and Obama could veto it. Why worry about it at this stage? Maybe republicans have a good idea?

Because I do this for a living and I can tell you without doubt it's not safe to run 97,000 lbs at 70 mph.

Why worry about it?

Because the Senate is considering it...again.

Sticking your head in the sand isn't an option.

Contact your Congressmen and Senators today and tell them you oppose S. 747 and H.R. 763.

You can send a message quickly and easily here at Public Citizen:

Public Citizen | Action Items

​

P.S. - I am a staunch Republican, that doesn't mean I should not speak out when they are dead wrong.

​

 

[Zander]

Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.

Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)

 

[martybegan]

Something is very fishy about this issue. The DOT has about a thousand hot shot college kids with calculators ready and willing to determine the risks related to breaking distance and weight ratio and there are another thousand federal employees who do nothing else but calculate bridge strength and the potential for road maintenance related to truck weight. More people are probably killed by high school girls texting their boyfriends while driving than heavy trucks. The senate can dump the bill and Obama could veto it. Why worry about it at this stage? Maybe republicans have a good idea?

Because I do this for a living and I can tell you without doubt it's not safe to run 97,000 lbs at 70 mph.

Why worry about it?

Because the Senate is considering it...again.

Sticking your head in the sand isn't an option.

Contact your Congressmen and Senators today and tell them you oppose S. 747 and H.R. 763.

You can send a message quickly and easily here at Public Citizen:

Public Citizen | Action Items

​

P.S. - I am a staunch Republican, that doesn't mean I should not speak out when they are dead wrong.

​

just to be on the up and up, you are a truck driver, and therefore do have a vested interest in this. however, isnt in the case that if truck weights go up, less trucks would be needed, and therefore this would result in possible less work for individual truckers?

Could self preservation be a motive here for you as well?

 

[Missourian]

Trucks have a 97K GVW limit in the UK- no problems- the world has not ended.

Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all allow 120k .......

We are lightweights in the trucking world.

Trucks are limited to 40-56 mph in those small countries.

The speed limits in the U.S. for trucks are as high as 80 mph, most states are 70 mph, nearly twice the legal speed limit for trucks in the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Denmark of around 40 mph.

In The Netherlands and Finland the legal speed limit for truck is around 50 mph.

Apples and Oranges.

Speed limits by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EDIT- Keep in mind the speed limits at the link are in KPH. A quick rule of thumb...55 MPH = 88 KPH

There is no proof that lower truck speed limits are safer. In fact ......Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[51] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109)

I agree with that...at current weights, split speed limits cause more accidents because they increase the interaction between cars and trucks. I've seen it for myself in California, Ohio and Illinois.

But at nearly 100,000 lbs, the stopping distance at U.S. highway speed become so elongated that a reduction in speed is the only alternative.

I've stopped an 80,000 truck after popping over a small rise at 70 mph to find traffic unexpectedly at a stand still.

The addition of 21% more weight to 97,000 will increase that stopping distance to beyond the ability to bring the vehicle to a halt before impacting the stopped traffic...or school bus...or vehicle turning left.

 

[Missourian]

lost my internet connection...posting with my phone...thunderstorm...i'll be back in the am

 

[hortysir]

Trucking companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Democrats say they are part of the corporate rich and should be taxed to death and diesel prices keep going up while Obama says "get a smaller car if you don't like it". America needs trucks to get the goods delivered and keep the prices down and every time republicans try to give them a break the socialists step in to prevent it.

Meanwhile gas prices skyrocket and many companies will have to decrease their fleet.
fewer trucks = bigger loads

 

[Old Rocks]

Here in the mountainous west, the heavier the load, the harder it is to stop on a long downgrade. And there are many more passes than just Wolf Creek that have long dangerous grades. The drivers have challenges enough with traffic and schedules without literally adding to their load.