Bill would limit heavy truck speed to 65 mph

Apr 2012
78,470
6,125
#1
This is a bad idea. The government should force all trucks to have a 70 MPH setting so they can do the speed limit. Doing under the limit means more traffic jams and more road rage and more accidents. To say it will lower accidents is a lie since cars cause most accidents that involve trucks

Bill would limit heavy truck speed to 65 mph

Two U.S. senators have introduced a bill that would electronically limit tractor-trailer speeds to 65 miles per hour, a move they say would save lives on the nation's highways.

Sens. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Chris Coons, D-Del., introduced the measure Thursday, saying it would take the place of a proposed Department of Transportation regulation that has "languished in the federal process" for over a decade.
The majority of trucks on U.S. roads already have the speed-limiting software built in, but it's not always used. Most other countries already use it to cap truck speeds, Isakson said in a statement.
The measure also would circumvent the Trump administration's Department of Transportation, which has delayed any action on the proposed rule indefinitely as part of a sweeping retreat from regulations that the president says slow the economy.
The rule, which didn't propose a top speed but said the government had studied 60, 65 and 68 mph, has been stuck since it moved through the public comment stage in November of 2016 toward the end of the Obama administration. The next action on the rule is listed as "undetermined" on a federal website.
 
Likes: TNVolunteer73

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
32,338
26,255
Kansas
#2
The reason trucks are subject to heavier regulation is not because they cause more accidents than cars, but because serious or fatal injuries almost always ensue from a cruising-speed highway wreck involving a truck. Cars can be built to protect their occupants against high-speed collisions with other cars, there is very little to be done if the other vehicle is a truck. Moreover, a truck out of control can very easily damage or destroy a significant number of cars before it loses inertia or hits enough steel to stop it.

In any case, within the next couple of decades at the latest, and probably sooner, all non-specialist, long-haul truckers will be replaced by self-driving rigs. Only those truckers who have specialized training in handling unique goods or in driving in unique environments will have any kind of job security, and there's no telling for how long.

I sympathize with these guys, but we don't need to be talking about opposing sensible regulations, we need to be talking about finding thousands of people a new job. Otherwise the technological transition will be upon us, nobody will have done anything for them in advance and we'll have a crisis on our hands.
 
Last edited:

Southern Dad

Former Staff
Feb 2015
40,588
8,530
Shady Dale, Georgia
#3
All those that think this is a good idea, aren’t really thinking it through. First it will take money right out of truck driver’s wallets. They are after all paid by the mile. Second, it will increase the costs on everything that is shipped.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
32,338
26,255
Kansas
#4
All those that think this is a good idea, aren’t really thinking it through. First it will take money right out of truck driver’s wallets. They are after all paid by the mile. Second, it will increase the costs on everything that is shipped.
By that standard, we should allow truckers to drive all night and all day as fast as they want as long as they want, because any other standard of regulation will take money out of their wallets and increase shipping costs. This is very obviously a question of cost-benefit analysis. "Wallets" and "shipping costs" do not outweigh human lives.

The only legitimate response here would be some type of analysis showing that either trucks are inappropriately blamed for fatality wrecks on the highway (when they are obviously responsible for many) or that the methods proposed would not succeed in reducing the number of truck-involved accidents.

Talking about truckers' wallets when everyone knows the stakes here is 100 percent tone deaf. Victims' families don't want to hear about truckers' wallets, and they don't own the road.
 
Jul 2011
78,682
44,419
Memphis, Tn.
#5
This is a bad idea. The government should force all trucks to have a 70 MPH setting so they can do the speed limit. Doing under the limit means more traffic jams and more road rage and more accidents. To say it will lower accidents is a lie since cars cause most accidents that involve trucks

Bill would limit heavy truck speed to 65 mph
Do 65mph if that is what the law says and stay in the far right lane except when passing.
Seems simple enough.

Let's see your OBJECTIVE proof that "cars cause most accidents."
 
Apr 2012
78,470
6,125
#7
The reason trucks are subject to heavier regulation is not because they cause more accidents than cars, but because serious or fatal injuries almost always ensue from a cruising-speed highway wreck involving a truck. Cars can be built to protect their occupants against high-speed collisions with other cars, there is very little to be done if the other vehicle is a truck. Moreover, a truck out of control can very easily damage or destroy a significant number of cars before it loses inertia or hits enough steel to stop it.

In any case, within the next couple of decades at the latest, and probably sooner, all non-specialist, long-haul truckers will be replaced by self-driving rigs. Only those truckers who have specialized training in handling unique goods or in driving in unique environments will have any kind of job security, and there's no telling for how long.

I sympathize with these guys, but we don't need to be talking about opposing sensible regulations, we need to be talking about finding thousands of people a new job. Otherwise the technological transition will be upon us, nobody will have done anything for them in advance and we'll have a crisis on our hands.
The point is most accidents involving trucks are caused by cars. Why do trucks have to pay for what is not their fault. Slowing truck will cause more problems. This is non truck drivers showing their ignorance

Truck Speed Limiters Won’t Improve Highway Safety | Trucks.com

Mandatory speed limiters will cause more deaths – Tandem Thoughts
 
Apr 2012
78,470
6,125
#8
By that standard, we should allow truckers to drive all night and all day as fast as they want as long as they want, because any other standard of regulation will take money out of their wallets and increase shipping costs. This is very obviously a question of cost-benefit analysis. "Wallets" and "shipping costs" do not outweigh human lives.

The only legitimate response here would be some type of analysis showing that either trucks are inappropriately blamed for fatality wrecks on the highway (when they are obviously responsible for many) or that the methods proposed would not succeed in reducing the number of truck-involved accidents.

Talking about truckers' wallets when everyone knows the stakes here is 100 percent tone deaf. Victims' families don't want to hear about truckers' wallets, and they don't own the road.
As always you can't discuss an issue without your exaggerations and illogical posts
 
Likes: Southern Dad
Apr 2012
78,470
6,125
#9
Do 65mph if that is what the law says and stay in the far right lane except when passing.
Seems simple enough.

Let's see your OBJECTIVE proof that "cars cause most accidents."
So when 2 65 mile an hour trucks are passing and it causes a traffic jam you will not get pissed off? It does not work