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

[Charles_Main]

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.”

Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights | Transport Topics Online | Trucking, Freight Transportation and Logistics News

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.

Have to disagree. I have a class A CDL and have drove Long Haul Trucks. With modern Tires and Modern Roads there is no reason the roads can not handle 100,000 Pounds or more.

As far as the Brakes not being able to handle it. You are completely wrong. There are log haulers on private Dirt roads hauling 200,000 Pounds at a time. There is no reason the Trucks can not handle 100,000 Pound loads. The Current Limits are not based on what the Trucks can handle. They are based on How much it is thought roads can handle, and frankly they are a bit out dated. Advances in breaks, Tires, Suspension and Road making mean most roads can easily handle much more than 80,000 pounds. For that matter More Tires can be added to trailers to spread the weight out. Essentially you could have the same or even less Weight per tire, while hauling more total weight, Just by adding a couple axles.

This move is meant to conserve Energy. You are talking about a 25% increase in cargo Hauling capacity. The Trucks will burn only a small amount more fuel while Hauling More Cargo.

Take it from someone who has actually worked in the Industry. 100,000 Pounds is reasonable, and will save Millions of Gallons of Fuel a year, and lower shipping costs.

 

[editec]

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.”

Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights | Transport Topics Online | Trucking, Freight Transportation and Logistics News

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.

Yup!

18 wheelers, especially those double trialer jobs are too damned big already.

They'd be fine, I imagine, if they weren't also on the road with regular cars.

Plus as Missourian points out, that much weight just breaks down the roads all the faster.

 

[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.”

Senators Introduce Bill to Boost Truck Weights | Transport Topics Online | Trucking, Freight Transportation and Logistics News

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.

Have to disagree. I have a class A CDL and have drove Long Haul Trucks. With modern Tires and Modern Roads there is no reason the roads can not handle 100,000 Pounds or more.

As far as the Brakes not being able to handle it. You are completely wrong. There are log haulers on private Dirt roads hauling 200,000 Pounds at a time. There is no reason the Trucks can not handle 100,000 Pound loads. The Current Limits are not based on what the Trucks can handle. They are based on How much it is thought roads can handle, and frankly they are a bit out dated. Advances in breaks, Tires, Suspension and Road making mean most roads can easily handle much more than 80,000 pounds. For that matter More Tires can be added to trailers to spread the weight out. Essentially you could have the same or even less Weight per tire, while hauling more total weight, Just by adding a couple axles.

This move is meant to conserve Energy. You are talking about a 25% increase in cargo Hauling capacity. The Trucks will burn only a small amount more fuel while Hauling More Cargo.

Take it from someone who has actually worked in the Industry. 100,000 Pounds is reasonable, and will save Millions of Gallons of Fuel a year, and lower shipping costs.

I know the trucks can haul it, but stopping 100,000 pounds is the problem, not moving it.

There will be very little fuel savings.

At 65,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 7 mpg.

At 80,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 6 mpg.

One can infer a 95,000 truck/load at 70 mph will average 5 mpg, a 17% reduction in fuel mileage for a 17% increase in payload is a wash...no savings whatsoever.

 

[Missourian]

Here's a source on that average MPG for Class 8 commercial trucks

Since 1990 the average fuel economy of single unit trucks has increased from 6.2 to 8.8 miles per gallon (MPG) while the average fuel economy of combination trucks has only increased from 5.8 to 5.9 MPG .

http://www.sturmanindustries.com/main/latestNews/MJB_HDFEissues_09.pdf
Page 7, "Vehicles, Mileage, and Fuel Use", paragraph 3.

 

[Missourian]

Spreading the weight to another axle still causes more damage to the roadway.

You can find the explanation here: Equivalent Single Axle Load - Pavement Interactive


What it boils down to can be found in table one.

A single 18,000 axle is rated as a load factor of 1.00 on flexible pavement and 1.00 on rigid pavement.

A tandem 34,000 axle combination (two 18,000 singles side by side) has a load equivalency factor of 1.11 on flexible pavement and 1.92 on rigid pavement.

If spreading the load by simply adding another axle created the same damage to the road, the the load factor of the tandem axle would be 1.00 just like the single axle.

Table 1 doesn't expand to include triple axles but judging from the increase between single and tandem (almost double for rigid roadway), one can infer an equal increase from tandem to triple.

And no one is arguing that the damage to bridges will not increase with heavier loads.

Many bridges on major U.S. Highways are rated below the present standard of 40 tons.

This entire proposal is a terrible idea all the way around.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Have to disagree. I have a class A CDL and have drove Long Haul Trucks. With modern Tires and Modern Roads there is no reason the roads can not handle 100,000 Pounds or more.

As far as the Brakes not being able to handle it. You are completely wrong. There are log haulers on private Dirt roads hauling 200,000 Pounds at a time. There is no reason the Trucks can not handle 100,000 Pound loads. The Current Limits are not based on what the Trucks can handle. They are based on How much it is thought roads can handle, and frankly they are a bit out dated. Advances in breaks, Tires, Suspension and Road making mean most roads can easily handle much more than 80,000 pounds. For that matter More Tires can be added to trailers to spread the weight out. Essentially you could have the same or even less Weight per tire, while hauling more total weight, Just by adding a couple axles.

This move is meant to conserve Energy. You are talking about a 25% increase in cargo Hauling capacity. The Trucks will burn only a small amount more fuel while Hauling More Cargo.

Take it from someone who has actually worked in the Industry. 100,000 Pounds is reasonable, and will save Millions of Gallons of Fuel a year, and lower shipping costs.

I know the trucks can haul it, but stopping 100,000 pounds is the problem, not moving it.

There will be very little fuel savings.

At 65,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 7 mpg.

At 80,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 6 mpg.

One can infer a 95,000 truck/load at 70 mph will average 5 mpg, a 17% reduction in fuel mileage for a 17% increase in payload is a wash...no savings whatsoever.

I would question 5MPG, I believe as you add more weight the ratio of Fuel Use goes down Could be wrong, But even if you are right and it is a wash, then you still have more Freight per Trip which will indeed lower shipping costs.

Like I said I know Guys who regularly Haul 200,000 Pound loads of Logs. I Really do not think 100,000 Pounds is to much for Modern Trucks breaks to handle. Simply use trailers like we have here in Michigan. 22 wheels I believe they are. Spreads the weight out, and gives you added breaks. Restrict the Bigger loads to the Interstates and I don't see why it should be to much of a problem.

One of the First things you learn when you go to school to get a CDL is this. 80% of all accidents involving a big Rig are the Fault of the Other Vehicle/Vehicles Involved. Since going through it, I personally think everyone on the road should have to take a condensed version of it. It made me a much safer driver in any vehicle.

IMO Truck Drivers would have no problem handling 100,000 Pound loads regularly. In fact they do all the time already with special Permits. Hauling 100k and much more on the open road is not illegal, you just need permits.

 

[Missourian]

Have to disagree. I have a class A CDL and have drove Long Haul Trucks. With modern Tires and Modern Roads there is no reason the roads can not handle 100,000 Pounds or more.

As far as the Brakes not being able to handle it. You are completely wrong. There are log haulers on private Dirt roads hauling 200,000 Pounds at a time. There is no reason the Trucks can not handle 100,000 Pound loads. The Current Limits are not based on what the Trucks can handle. They are based on How much it is thought roads can handle, and frankly they are a bit out dated. Advances in breaks, Tires, Suspension and Road making mean most roads can easily handle much more than 80,000 pounds. For that matter More Tires can be added to trailers to spread the weight out. Essentially you could have the same or even less Weight per tire, while hauling more total weight, Just by adding a couple axles.

This move is meant to conserve Energy. You are talking about a 25% increase in cargo Hauling capacity. The Trucks will burn only a small amount more fuel while Hauling More Cargo.

Take it from someone who has actually worked in the Industry. 100,000 Pounds is reasonable, and will save Millions of Gallons of Fuel a year, and lower shipping costs.

I know the trucks can haul it, but stopping 100,000 pounds is the problem, not moving it.

There will be very little fuel savings.

At 65,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 7 mpg.

At 80,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 6 mpg.

One can infer a 95,000 truck/load at 70 mph will average 5 mpg, a 17% reduction in fuel mileage for a 17% increase in payload is a wash...no savings whatsoever.

I would question 5MPG, I believe as you add more weight the ratio of Fuel Use goes down Could be wrong, But even if you are right and it is a wash, then you still have more Freight per Trip which will indeed lower shipping costs.

Like I said I know Guys who regularly Haul 200,000 Pound loads of Logs. I Really do not think 100,000 Pounds is to much for Modern Trucks breaks to handle. Simply use trailers like we have here in Michigan. 22 wheels I believe they are. Spreads the weight out, and gives you added breaks. Restrict the Bigger loads to the Interstates and I don't see why it should be to much of a problem.

One of the First things you learn when you go to school to get a CDL is this. 80% of all accidents involving a big Rig are the Fault of the Other Vehicle/Vehicles Involved. Since going through it, I personally think everyone on the road should have to take a condensed version of it. It made me a much safer driver in any vehicle.

IMO Truck Drivers would have no problem handling 100,000 Pound loads regularly. In fact they do all the time already with special Permits. Hauling 100k and much more on the open road is not illegal, you just need permits.

It doesn't matter that the truck driver isn't at fault, when a car cuts in front of a fully loaded truck and jams the brakes to make a right turn...he or she is going to get killed by a 100,000 lb. truck that could have stopped at 80,000 lbs.





EDIT - This proposed increase does not limit the loads to interstates, this is shippers wanting dock to dock service on all U.S. roadways.

 

[Big Fitz]

What we need to do is what every other developed nation is doing and upgrade the rail system. A train goin 150 down a straight track pulling hundreds of thousands of pounds is a hell of a lot more efficinet. Sadly though, our hundred year old rails cant handle it, thats where moeny should be going.

Nice theory, major problem. The cause? Geography.

In France the TGV runs at full 150mph speed on only a few lines. The most famous is between Tours and Paris. A real speed track. The Eurostar can only break 150 on either side of the Chunnel, otherwise, it's coasting at a leisurely 100ish. Everywhere else, you're not going to get the same speed. It's still a good system in Europe, but not perfect.

In the US, there are two issues with this. The limited space in which long distance 150+ speed is possible. Mostly the great plains, some of the Great Basin and Texas and the South East. The mountains, totally out. The next is distance. The US is huge in comparison to Europe. Russia is a better example... not great but a better one.

Marty brings up another excellent point: Mass in Motion. The most economic method for hauling freight is the 'drag method'. You string as many cars as possible behind a set of engines. 100, 200, 300 cars packed full of double and triple stacked container carriers. That's not hundreds of thousands of pounds. That's MILLIONS of TONS!

So, combine the factors. Millions of tons of freight, moving at 100+ mph through say Horseshoe Curve on the East coast which is a 2% grade around a massive cul de sac valley and is the major artery for freight north and south on the east coast. Even improved track, a derailment would be catastrophic because it's such an essential corridor. Increased speed and weight would automatically increase the odds of this happening.

I dunno man. Check the speeds of freight trains in europe. I doubt they're as high as you think.

 

[Samson]

Truck drivers oppose this increase.

Owner-operators oppose this increase.

The driving public opposes this increase.

I wondered who favored this increase? The non-driving public?

Seems to be a fairly small constiuancy.

However, I like the idea of States deciding how much trucks may carry, or frankly, 99% of whatever happens in the state:

Here are the competing bills:

In brief
• HR 1799, the Safe and
Efficient Transportation
Act of 2009
What it does: Allows a state to authorize the operation of a vehicle with a maximum gross weight of 97,000 pounds, as long as the vehicle is equipped with at least six axles, and the weight of any single axle does not exceed 20,000 pounds or the weight of any group of three or more axles does not exceed 51,000 pounds.
In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects.

Versus
• HR 1618, the Safe
Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act
What it does: Freezes the maximum truck weight limit set by Congress in 1982 at 80,000 pounds beyond the 46,000-mile-plus Interstate System to encompass the entire 161,000-mile-plus National Highway System.

It appears to me that the "PRO" bill is in favor of states deciding to increase loads, and pays states to upgrade roadways for the increased loads.

The "CON" bill forces all states to be regulated to the federal limits, regardless of whatever might make the most sense in that state, or whatever the people of that state might want.

Frankly, I'd think a state like, say Rhode Island, like the smaller European countries that Zander mentioned that allow larger loads would benefit. And if it wouldn't benefit, it should be up to the state to decide.

 

[Big Fitz]

Truck drivers oppose this increase.

Owner-operators oppose this increase.

The driving public opposes this increase.

I wondered who favored this increase? The non-driving public?

Seems to be a fairly small constiuancy.

However, I like the idea of States deciding how much trucks may carry, or frankly, 99% of whatever happens in the state:

Here are the competing bills:

In brief
• HR 1799, the Safe and
Efficient Transportation
Act of 2009
What it does: Allows a state to authorize the operation of a vehicle with a maximum gross weight of 97,000 pounds, as long as the vehicle is equipped with at least six axles, and the weight of any single axle does not exceed 20,000 pounds or the weight of any group of three or more axles does not exceed 51,000 pounds.
In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects.

Versus
• HR 1618, the Safe
Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act
What it does: Freezes the maximum truck weight limit set by Congress in 1982 at 80,000 pounds beyond the 46,000-mile-plus Interstate System to encompass the entire 161,000-mile-plus National Highway System.

It appears to me that the "PRO" bill is in favor of states deciding to increase loads, and pays states to upgrade roadways for the increased loads.

The "CON" bill forces all states to be regulated to the federal limits, regardless of whatever might make the most sense in that state, or whatever the people of that state might want.

Frankly, I'd think a state like, say Rhode Island, like the smaller European countries that Zander mentioned that allow larger loads would benefit. And if it wouldn't benefit, it should be up to the state to decide.

Shit .... they can't handle what's on the road today. Thursday, someone put a case of dumb in their coffee, for instance and I had 2 people try to kill themselves against my bus on my morning run alone.

IIRC, there is one group this bill COULD help outside of the big companies moving more freight and having fewer drivers, owner operators. They can increase their rates and get higher profit (in theory) per load and help them keep running. BUT... as I just learned, their insurance rates and personal danger would shoot way way WAY up. So I don't know who's really the driving force.

Doing this on local roads is very concerning indeed.

 

[Samson]

Truck drivers oppose this increase.

Owner-operators oppose this increase.

The driving public opposes this increase.

I wondered who favored this increase? The non-driving public?

Seems to be a fairly small constiuancy.

However, I like the idea of States deciding how much trucks may carry, or frankly, 99% of whatever happens in the state:

Here are the competing bills:

In brief
• HR 1799, the Safe and
Efficient Transportation
Act of 2009
What it does: Allows a state to authorize the operation of a vehicle with a maximum gross weight of 97,000 pounds, as long as the vehicle is equipped with at least six axles, and the weight of any single axle does not exceed 20,000 pounds or the weight of any group of three or more axles does not exceed 51,000 pounds.
In addition, it establishes a safe, efficient vehicle bridge infrastructure improvement program and apportions amounts from the Safe and Efficient Vehicle Trust Fund to states for eligible bridge replacement or rehabilitation projects.

Versus
• HR 1618, the Safe
Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act
What it does: Freezes the maximum truck weight limit set by Congress in 1982 at 80,000 pounds beyond the 46,000-mile-plus Interstate System to encompass the entire 161,000-mile-plus National Highway System.

It appears to me that the "PRO" bill is in favor of states deciding to increase loads, and pays states to upgrade roadways for the increased loads.

The "CON" bill forces all states to be regulated to the federal limits, regardless of whatever might make the most sense in that state, or whatever the people of that state might want.

Frankly, I'd think a state like, say Rhode Island, like the smaller European countries that Zander mentioned that allow larger loads would benefit. And if it wouldn't benefit, it should be up to the state to decide.

Shit .... they can't handle what's on the road today. Thursday, someone put a case of dumb in their coffee, for instance and I had 2 people try to kill themselves against my bus on my morning run alone.

IIRC, there is one group this bill COULD help outside of the big companies moving more freight and having fewer drivers, owner operators. They can increase their rates and get higher profit (in theory) per load and help them keep running. BUT... as I just learned, their insurance rates and personal danger would shoot way way WAY up. So I don't know who's really the driving force.

Doing this on local roads is very concerning indeed.

Another reason owner/operators don't like it is they wouldn't be competitive without the expensive to install 6th axel.

Regardless, the STATES should decide what is safe, fair, or whatever, within their borders: Not the Feds.

 

[jillian]

I wondered who favored this increase? The non-driving public?

Seems to be a fairly small constiuancy.

However, I like the idea of States deciding how much trucks may carry, or frankly, 99% of whatever happens in the state:

Here are the competing bills:




It appears to me that the "PRO" bill is in favor of states deciding to increase loads, and pays states to upgrade roadways for the increased loads.

The "CON" bill forces all states to be regulated to the federal limits, regardless of whatever might make the most sense in that state, or whatever the people of that state might want.

Frankly, I'd think a state like, say Rhode Island, like the smaller European countries that Zander mentioned that allow larger loads would benefit. And if it wouldn't benefit, it should be up to the state to decide.

Shit .... they can't handle what's on the road today. Thursday, someone put a case of dumb in their coffee, for instance and I had 2 people try to kill themselves against my bus on my morning run alone.

IIRC, there is one group this bill COULD help outside of the big companies moving more freight and having fewer drivers, owner operators. They can increase their rates and get higher profit (in theory) per load and help them keep running. BUT... as I just learned, their insurance rates and personal danger would shoot way way WAY up. So I don't know who's really the driving force.

Doing this on local roads is very concerning indeed.

Another reason owner/operators don't like it is they wouldn't be competitive without the expensive to install 6th axel.

Regardless, the STATES should decide what is safe, fair, or whatever, within their borders: Not the Feds.

not true. i'd direct you to the cases dealing with the interstate commerce. this one deals with mud flaps, specifically.

BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., 359 U. S. 520 :: Volume 359 :: 1959 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[B. Kidd]

I know the trucks can haul it, but stopping 100,000 pounds is the problem, not moving it.

There will be very little fuel savings.

At 65,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 7 mpg.

At 80,000 lb. truck/load at 70 mph averages 6 mpg.

One can infer a 95,000 truck/load at 70 mph will average 5 mpg, a 17% reduction in fuel mileage for a 17% increase in payload is a wash...no savings whatsoever.

I would question 5MPG, I believe as you add more weight the ratio of Fuel Use goes down Could be wrong, But even if you are right and it is a wash, then you still have more Freight per Trip which will indeed lower shipping costs.

Like I said I know Guys who regularly Haul 200,000 Pound loads of Logs. I Really do not think 100,000 Pounds is to much for Modern Trucks breaks to handle. Simply use trailers like we have here in Michigan. 22 wheels I believe they are. Spreads the weight out, and gives you added breaks. Restrict the Bigger loads to the Interstates and I don't see why it should be to much of a problem.

One of the First things you learn when you go to school to get a CDL is this. 80% of all accidents involving a big Rig are the Fault of the Other Vehicle/Vehicles Involved. Since going through it, I personally think everyone on the road should have to take a condensed version of it. It made me a much safer driver in any vehicle.

IMO Truck Drivers would have no problem handling 100,000 Pound loads regularly. In fact they do all the time already with special Permits. Hauling 100k and much more on the open road is not illegal, you just need permits.

It doesn't matter that the truck driver isn't at fault, when a car cuts in front of a fully loaded truck and jams the brakes to make a right turn...he or she is going to get killed by a 100,000 lb. truck that could have stopped at 80,000 lbs.





EDIT - This proposed increase does not limit the loads to interstates, this is shippers wanting dock to dock service on all U.S. roadways.

You mean similar to this?:




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhq2ZToBAv4]YouTube - !!CAUGHT ON VIDEO:BIG RIG FLIPS OVER HIGHWAY MEDIAN!![/ame]

 

[Samson]

Shit .... they can't handle what's on the road today. Thursday, someone put a case of dumb in their coffee, for instance and I had 2 people try to kill themselves against my bus on my morning run alone.

IIRC, there is one group this bill COULD help outside of the big companies moving more freight and having fewer drivers, owner operators. They can increase their rates and get higher profit (in theory) per load and help them keep running. BUT... as I just learned, their insurance rates and personal danger would shoot way way WAY up. So I don't know who's really the driving force.

Doing this on local roads is very concerning indeed.

Another reason owner/operators don't like it is they wouldn't be competitive without the expensive to install 6th axel.

Regardless, the STATES should decide what is safe, fair, or whatever, within their borders: Not the Feds.

not true. i'd direct you to the cases dealing with the interstate commerce. this one deals with mud flaps, specifically.

BIBB V. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., 359 U. S. 520 :: Volume 359 :: 1959 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

What's "not true?"

IMHO, States should be able to decide if 97,000 lb trucking can happen (if there's a 6th axel on the truck) within their state, and if they do decide its OK, then they should quailfy for federal funding to upgrade roads/bridges.

How does this issue have anything to do with the case you've cited?

Is it because trucks have mud-flaps?

 

[Missourian]

Like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNAxQTr9rvg&feature=fvsr]YouTube - Semi Truck Rolls Over[/ame]​

I actually saw this accident, I have pictures of the aftermath from the cab of my truck, I'll hunt them up.

This truck driver came around the corner at highway speed and there in front of him was stopped traffic.

 

[Big Fitz]

Like this:

YouTube - Semi Truck Rolls Over​

I actually saw this accident, I have pictures of the aftermath from the cab of my truck, I'll hunt them up.

This truck driver came around the corner at highway speed and there in front of him was stopped traffic.

well he blew his smith system certification that day. Yeep!

 

[B. Kidd]

I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
Also can't fail to mention the SWIFT transport driver factor too (Sure Wish I Finished Training).

 

[Samson]

I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
Also can't fail to mention the SWIFT transport driver factor too (Sure Wish I Finished Training).

You mean...trucks have accidents?

Shit! I bet cars do to!

Maybe the Federal government should ban all forms of transportation that exceed 10 mph.

The fact is that the Feds are cracking down on Trucking, and you guys know it. Hell, you cannot stop and take a leak without recording it, and if you don't wipe your ass well enough, you'll lose your CDL.

 

[Big Fitz]

I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
Also can't fail to mention the SWIFT transport driver factor too (Sure Wish I Finished Training).

You mean...trucks have accidents?

Shit! I bet cars do to!

Maybe the Federal government should ban all forms of transportation that exceed 10 mph.

The fact is that the Feds are cracking down on Trucking, and you guys know it. Hell, you cannot stop and take a leak without recording it, and if you don't wipe your ass well enough, you'll lose your CDL.

Yep. If you're too heavy, you gotta get sleep apnea testing cause, you know... 37% of SERIOUS FATAL accidents are caused by falling asleep behind the wheel. I'm sure that the percentage is far greater for all accidents.

They don't want 'unhealthy' or imperfect drivers. The world is not safe and if you can't be perfect, you shouldn't be doing anything in it that could be dangerous at any time.

Fucking morons. Way to grow the economy.

 

[Samson]

I 100% agree with the OP. Both vids in daylight w/ normal driving conditions. Throw in rain, fog, ice, or snow and many more major wrecks will increase, maybe to the tune of 50-60%.
Also can't fail to mention the SWIFT transport driver factor too (Sure Wish I Finished Training).

You mean...trucks have accidents?

Shit! I bet cars do to!

Maybe the Federal government should ban all forms of transportation that exceed 10 mph.

The fact is that the Feds are cracking down on Trucking, and you guys know it. Hell, you cannot stop and take a leak without recording it, and if you don't wipe your ass well enough, you'll lose your CDL.

Yep. If you're too heavy, you gotta get sleep apnea testing cause, you know... 37% of SERIOUS FATAL accidents are caused by falling asleep behind the wheel. I'm sure that the percentage is far greater for all accidents.

They don't want 'unhealthy' or imperfect drivers. The world is not safe and if you can't be perfect, you shouldn't be doing anything in it that could be dangerous at any time.

Fucking morons. Way to grow the economy.

Yeah I heard about the Fat Trucker rule....for christssakes, doesn't that disqualify like 80% of the truckers out there?