Letters to the Editor: Leave Speed Alone

Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.

he trucking industry is far too highly regulated as it is, and the fact that people want to put speed limiters on trucks is just another example of over-regulation.

When the AAA does a study and finds that nearly three-fourths of all truck/car crashes are because of the driver of the car and NOT the truck driver, why are people clamoring for more and more regulations for trucks?

Frankly, I think it’s because trucks scare drivers who are not familiar with them and how they operate — they’re big, and they can’t stop on a dime, so they’re scary. It’s certainly not because of any independent scientific studies related to trucking safety.

We in this industry need to start “pushing back” on some of the ridiculous regulations that keep spewing out of Washington and quit rolling over and taking it as if we have no choice in the matter. We also need to push for industry-friendly lawmakers to be elected by our respective states to avoid some of these issues in the first place.

Brian Trasamar

i>Former driver, now in management

mployer’s name withheld at author’s request

andy, Utah

The National Association of Small Trucking Companies respectfully wishes to disagree with ATA’s position on setting governors at 68 mph.

s there any data to support ATA’s assertion that this move would “reduce the number and severity of speed-related crashes”?

Where did the magic number of 68 mph come from? Why not 78? Or, why not 60?

When no truck sharing the road with other noncommercial vehicles can accelerate beyond 68 mph, all trucks on the interstate will be going their maximum speed at all times. They will be relegated to life in the right-hand lane and they will be unable to separate themselves from the herd.

They will not be able to speed up or slow down to negotiate grades, and, in general, you will have created a major, dangerous, high-density traffic jam on the interstate.

Possibly the worst part of this ill-conceived and poorly thought-out notion is that you will, in effect, mandate split speed limits between cars and trucks. Four-wheel interstate traffic seems to gravitate to six to nine miles above the posted limit, which for the most part is 70 mph on the interstate. Here you would find the flow of four-wheel traffic at 77 mph to 80 mph relegated to the left lane and trucks at 68 mph relegated to the right lane. This is a tremendously unsafe scenario and would increase the number and severity of speed-related crashes, not decrease them.

Didn’t the Interstate Commerce Commission mandate ICC bars years ago to prevent “drive-unders,” the major cause of which is a truck going too slow and a car going too fast?

Most important, you’re taking control of the speed on the truck away from its captain, the driver. How much more can our already depleted driver pool take in the way of unfavorable and Draconian federal controls? In the face of “big corporate” and “big government” micromanagement of the driver, is it any surprise that carriers have such high turnover? With the onset of GPS tracking, black box tracking and governed trucks, maybe we should start designing a robot that can be programmed to occupy the driver seat.

Finally, is ATA’s big-company bias showing a bit with this proposal? It knows that governing trucks will save on fuel and it knows that drivers hate this “commercial restrictor plate.” So, by making this an industrywide mandate by the federal government, it can force everyone to comply with this inane, ill-guided idea. Perhaps this thinking will slow down the steady flow of good drivers leaving larger companies and finding a home in smaller companies.

David Owen

I>President

ational Association of Small Trucking Companies

endersonville, Tenn.

These letters appear in the March 27 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.