Should Highway Truck Speeds Be Governed at 68 MPH?
Schneider National, Road Safety America and eight other motor carriers have petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to require electronic speed governors to be set at not more than 68 mpg for large trucks. Should truckers be regulated in this way?
Of course, there should not be a manditory regulation on large truck speeds. We already have a system, called the railroad that does just that. Each state should set the speeds that are safe in there jurisdiction and simply enforce the laws. We already have so many laws and restrictions that no one can keep track of them. It is time to stop over regulation and over control of every situation and enforce the laws already available.
It would make more sense to enhance vehicle maintenance for safety and driver capabilities.
First, if this proposal would happen to become law, it would soon be rescinded as freight rates went through the roof as well as the current driver shortage escalated to the point loads would set for weeks without being hauled. Independents would simply quit as it would no longer be profitable for them to operate. If they operate now at 75MPH in states that allow it, cutting them back to 68MPH would reduce their income by 10%-would you stand for that? It is part of the plan to make everone a "Company Driver"-evident by the current companies backing the idea: Dart, JB,Schneider etc. Good legislation for them, just put a bunch of clones behind the wheel. Now that I am on the side that needs stuff moved (I was a driver and dispatcher for 10 years), all I see is freight sitting and freight rates rising.
I say no. Most people who are associated with the transportation system and have actively spent time working and talking with over the road drivers will find that the majority are very safety conscious even tho at times they do travel at higher speeds.
I would agree that its the non-travelers who get on the Interstates and off interstate roads and create havoc with their inexperience and mostly in ability to drive defensively.
I think mostly about those who drive in the outside lane and drive slowly and are not aware of whats going on around them.
If you want an interesting example, let a State Trooper get on any interstate and travel at 65 mph. In a very short period of time you will see a large bottle neck develop, including a grouping of many trucks which create more bottle necks and more danger for inexperienced drivers.
My hats off to the many professional drivers who can and do handle speeds, spacings, and road conditions far better than the average.
Its just to bad that those who make rules have not spent a lot of time driving 125,000 to 200,000 miles per year and operate off the I think opinion. Also, I have had quite a few statistic courses and it takes quite a bit of work to get a "pure" sampling of what is actually the truth.
If the speed is reduced to 68MPH, this will increase the number of interactions between car and trucks. As anyone can tell you, increasing the number of interactions increases the number of potential conflicts. Do you think that guy in the car who just waitied 10 minutes for the one truck to pass the other (no truck is going to be set exactly the same, and cargo weight and even a 1% grade will mean a difference in speeds) is going to be golly, good, & happy when he finally gets to get back up to normal/legal speed of 75MPH? Increase the number of interactions and you will increase the number of conflicts.
No, truck speeds should not be governed at a given speed but Truck driving Training schools should be putting more emphasis on better training the drivers. The present schools are only giving mimamum traing to these drivers with hardly any emphasis on the background of the trucking industry and I have found many drivers do not even know what they are looking at when they look at the gauges on the dash of these trucks. Most of the drivers who come out of Truck Drivers School are just steering wheel holders who have no idea about the industry and the integrity it once had. If you are properly traing the drivers fully and only qualify the ones who are responsible to both themseves and the industry, then we wouldn't have to be concerned about the speed of the truck, because they would drive accordingly. What the US needs is much better trained drivers who are responsible and disciplined. It takes at least a year for a individual to really learn this business and know what he or she is doing behind the wheel. Most Truck Driving schools are only interested in getting people in and out as quick as possible to make a huge profit.
Yes, the industry doesn't benefit from poorer fuel mileage, heavier loads, higher speeds, etc... only the shippers win. You don't see rates increase when a carrier figures a way to haul more, they (the carrier) only get the business. I agree there would be a "short-term" difficulty, but the overall affect would be positive (from the transportation industry perspective). Drivers would make the same amount or more, for less work (the demand for drivers would increase, thereby increasing the value of the driver). Carriers would benefit by having reduced fuel expenses, and wear and tear. Owner operators would have a double win, they drive fewer miles for the same pay, and have less expenses. Shippers would be forced to cater to carriers... no more sitting 1/2 a day getting loaded and unloaded, the time crunch would force that issue! I am concerned about the speed difference between cars and trucks... set all new autos at the same 68... think of the fuel savings... maybe we could tell Iran and Venezuela to keep their oil! Faster isn't synonymous with better!
Yes, the industry doesn't benefit from poorer fuel mileage, heavier loads, higher speeds, etc... only the shippers win. You don't see rates increase when a carrier figures a way to haul more, they (the carrier) only get the business. I agree there would be a "short-term" difficulty, but the overall affect would be positive (from the transportation industry perspective). Drivers would make the same amount or more, for less work (the demand for drivers would increase, thereby increasing the value of the driver). Carriers would benefit by having reduced fuel expenses, and wear and tear. Owner operators would have a double win, they drive fewer miles for the same pay, and have less expenses. Shippers would be forced to cater to carriers... no more sitting 1/2 a day getting loaded and unloaded, the time crunch would force that issue! I am concerned about the speed difference between cars and trucks... set all new autos at the same 68... think of the fuel savings... maybe we could tell Iran and Venezuela to keep their oil! Faster isn't synonymous with better!
I have a few exceptions to your statements. I am not denying there would be a few benefits, but I have to state the following:
Currently (and for the past 10 years) there is a shortage of drivers. That is why carriers spend a horrendous amount on recruiting. Do you think they [i]want[i] to hire greenhorns right out of driving school (and some pay for the training as well-kind of like "indentured servants"). No, and their insurance company doesn't like it either. With the current driver shortage, hiring expenses will dramatically increase. Where is the Pool of Drivers that they will need to make up for the lost productivity?
Secondly, Owner-Operators (O-O) will be devestated by this. The only way they can make money is by "out driving" the company guys-more miles=more pay. Yes, they pay more in fuel costs, but there is still a high demand for the "I need it yesterday!" stuff. How are O-O's making the same money for driving fewer miles for the same pay? No one in their right mind is going to pay you more money for less work. The rates won't increase if we have this supposed influx of drivers-they will go down for the O-O.
Finally, this law will have no effect on having shippers have loads ready earlier. Having been on both sides of the fence (as a Fleet Manager and now working in a shipper logistics position), I can tell you there are too many factors involved on having every load ready on time. If carriers want to invest in increasing their fleet and having drop trailers to load, it would be better, but when anyone live loads, production issues can and do cause delays. Many times trucks inbound with raw materials showing up late profoundly affect outbound loading. This will probably increase with the proposed law. It's a viscious circle.
I have a few exceptions to your statements. I am not denying there would be a few benefits, but I have to state the following:
Currently (and for the past 10 years) there is a shortage of drivers. That is why carriers spend a horrendous amount on recruiting. Do you think they [i]want[i] to hire greenhorns right out of driving school (and some pay for the training as well-kind of like "indentured servants"). No, and their insurance company doesn't like it either. With the current driver shortage, hiring expenses will dramatically increase. Where is the Pool of Drivers that they will need to make up for the lost productivity?
Secondly, Owner-Operators (O-O) will be devestated by this. The only way they can make money is by "out driving" the company guys-more miles=more pay. Yes, they pay more in fuel costs, but there is still a high demand for the "I need it yesterday!" stuff. How are O-O's making the same money for driving fewer miles for the same pay? No one in their right mind is going to pay you more money for less work. The rates won't increase if we have this supposed influx of drivers-they will go down for the O-O.
Finally, this law will have no effect on having shippers have loads ready earlier. Having been on both sides of the fence (as a Fleet Manager and now working in a shipper logistics position), I can tell you there are too many factors involved on having every load ready on time. If carriers want to invest in increasing their fleet and having drop trailers to load, it would be better, but when anyone live loads, production issues can and do cause delays. Many times trucks inbound with raw materials showing up late profoundly affect outbound loading. This will probably increase with the proposed law. It's a viscious circle.
A wise man once said, "you'll run out of money before you run out of product." That is certainly the case with drivers. I too have seen it from both sides of the fence, and have found the trucking industry often plays into the hand of the shipper. We push for higher weight allowance, but then haul the heavier load for the same amount of money, we push for longer trailers, to haul more freight for the same rate etc. To answer why a shipper would pay more money for "less work"... they won't have a choice, you answered that question in an earlier post... the rates would be forced through the roof.
The circle you speak of, is the shipper/consignee putting the holding of inventory on the back of the trucking industry... perhaps the transportation industry should put that monkey back on the manufacturer? The "driver shortage" you speak of, is older than 10 years, but I contend it isn't a shortage, but rather a result of a highly competitive industry. When a true shortage of any commodity (I believe labor, including drivers, can be considered a "commodity" by industry) exists, there is a corresponding increase in demand, resulting in a higher cost (wage, working condition etc)? With enough pay, and change in working conditions, you will have an increased supply of drivers, or on the other side, with an increased "cost" to the shipper, there will be a reduction in demand?
Owner / Operators don't make it, necessarily by out driving the company driver, rather by out performing him. Performance isn't all in miles, often it is in service and customer relations. I think shippers have "bluffed" the transportation industry into thinking it has to be more efficient, when in reality it is the shipper / consignee that needs to become more efficient.
A wise man once said, "you'll run out of money before you run out of product." That is certainly the case with drivers. I too have seen it from both sides of the fence, and have found the trucking industry often plays into the hand of the shipper. We push for higher weight allowance, but then haul the heavier load for the same amount of money, we push for longer trailers, to haul more freight for the same rate etc. To answer why a shipper would pay more money for "less work"... they won't have a choice, you answered that question in an earlier post... the rates would be forced through the roof.
The circle you speak of, is the shipper/consignee putting the holding of inventory on the back of the trucking industry... perhaps the transportation industry should put that monkey back on the manufacturer? The "driver shortage" you speak of, is older than 10 years, but I contend it isn't a shortage, but rather a result of a highly competitive industry. When a true shortage of any commodity (I believe labor, including drivers, can be considered a "commodity" by industry) exists, there is a corresponding increase in demand, resulting in a higher cost (wage, working condition etc)? With enough pay, and change in working conditions, you will have an increased supply of drivers, or on the other side, with an increased "cost" to the shipper, there will be a reduction in demand?
Owner / Operators don't make it, necessarily by out driving the company driver, rather by out performing him. Performance isn't all in miles, often it is in service and customer relations. I think shippers have "bluffed" the transportation industry into thinking it has to be more efficient, when in reality it is the shipper / consignee that needs to become more efficient.
No offense but you don't have the slightest of what you are talking about do you? If you knew anything about the trucking industry you wouldn't say one thing that you did. The quote "more miles = more money" is the truth hands down. Drivers are paid by the mile or percentage of the load. So you have the idea to just get more pay from the shippers??? HUH? You don't know at all do you, they don't and won't pay more. This is a doggy dog world and the JB'S and Schneiders are the big dogs eating the whole bowl leaving the food dust for the rest. They outbid by hundreds of dollars with the idea of volume, which it does work but at what costs?? Qualified drivers, good pay, steady buisness, and of course goverment regulations in which these huge companies of course lay down for because they control so much of the market, it doesnt matter to them if the speed was 40 or 80, they will just add another truck to make up that time gap. Basically the speed law and the HOS laws are ridiculous. Stop trying to save that one life with costing thousands of people their lively hoods!!!
Should Highway Truck Speeds Be Governed at 68 MPH?
How does this make sense?
Linear Mode
