Would larger trucks pose safety hazard?
Highway safety advocates today launched the latest campaign to block an increase in truck size and weights on U.S. highways.
The Truck Safety Coalition released a state-by-state breakdown based on the number of truck-related fatalities per 100,000 population in 2007. Missouri ranked No. 16 at 2.31 deaths per 100,000 population, earning the group’s ”deadly” rating. Illinois ranked No. 37 with 1.2 deaths.
The stats were released at a news conference in Washington, D.C. unveiling a new web site, StopBiggerTrucks.org. Families of fatal truck crash accidents also appealed for Congress to hold the line on truck weights and sizes. In addition to raising weight limits, shippers and some trucking industry officials support expanding the number of states where longer double- and triple-trailer trucks can drive.
The coalition wants to freeze the existing gross weight limits of 80,000 pounds and 53-foot maximum lengths for tractor-trailer trucks using the interstate highway system.
“I don’t blame the truck drivers at all,” said Joan Claybrook, board chair of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH). “The problem is the rules. It is so much harder for these drivers to control the big trucks.”
The American Trucking Associations said the highways would be safer with the larger trucks.
A congressional bill would authorize states to permit single-trailer trucks to weigh in at 97,000 pounds, provided they have a sixth axle with increased braking capability, said Clayton Boyce, vice president of public affairs for the ATA.
The ability to carry more cargo also would reduce the number of trucks on the highways, trucking industry advocates say, thus making things safer and relieving congestion.
Breaking down traffic deaths by population is a “totally bogus statistic,” Boyce said, because it skews the results toward less-populous states crisscrossed by interstate highways. The most dangerous state in the Truck Safety Coalition report was Wyoming.
When measured by vehicle-miles traveled, trucking has gotten safer since 1965, he said. Besides school buses, trucks have the lowest crash rate of any vehicle type.
“The industry,” he added, “is concerned about public safety.”
……….I’m no engineer, but has there been any study as to what effect the increased weights will have on the roads needing repair?
I can attest to the inherent instability of tandem trailers during treacherous driving conditions. During rush hour several years ago during snow/icy conditions, the second trailer of a Roadway rig in the neighboring lane slid within 6 inches to a foot of my car while I was stopped in traffic. It is inherently more difficult to prevent the second (or third) trailer from sliding around in poor driving conditions than a single trailer.
As a veteran long haul driver I can tell you that drivers are not in favor of increasing size and wieght limits, it’s the big companies that are behind this and it’s driven by greed. 53 ft. trailers are to big for anywhere other than an interstate. I guess that’s where trucks are noticed the most but they have to get off the interstate to make there drops and pickups. If these big companies were concerned about safety they would have strict requirements for recruiting drivers and equipment, most don’t. The driver turn over rate in the trucking industry is 120%, think about that, and these companies want bigger and heavier trucks, I don’t think that’s a good plan at all!
No! They are tearing up my town right now because the city streets cannot accomodate the current sized trucks entering/exiting I-44. They just spent 3 years redoing a viaduct that they will be tearing up *again* because the trucks are too big. I’m paying a 1c city sales tax surcharge (not voted on by the people) because the city only sees the revenue, none of which will benefit me or my quality of life.
I am 100% against tandems and triples, and even 53 footers. We’ve got the UP and Burlington Northern running *right through* our town, but an intermodal freight center? Nope. They go right past for another 20 miles, only to have large trucks haul goods back that 20 miles.
Truckers need jobs. Perhaps (considering the state of our RRs) a few commodities like fresh veggies need long haul trucks. But at least 75% of our stuff should go back on the rails where it belongs, and the truckers transferred to smaller BL loops where they could be home every night or every other night at max.
We don’t need behemoths on the roads.
Due to comment length, please visit my blog at http://truckied.wordpress.com and read the post “Heavier trucks? Bad idea.”
When you get a moment please go to http://www.dangeroustrailers.org. We also have a concern with Utility Trailers. Accidents from ‘Passenger Cars That Tow Trailers” have caused since 1976 over 14,810 people to be taken. Since 1988 over 449,000 injured and since 1988 over 1,500,000 things damaged and our Government does noting.
In fact you can have your trailer come loose and cause death and distruction and nothing happens to you. Why?
In most states no standards are in place for any trailer that is just one pound under 3,000 pounds. The Families that have lost loved ones want to get involved but they are involved in lawsuits.
The Utility Trailer industry is not concerend about public safety because if they were they would have addressed why 8 states do not require SAFETY CHAINS on their trailers and why they decided to fight the REFLECTOR TAPE LAW in Virginia.
The Utility Trailer Industry… Profit over Safety
I can’t wait to drive with these things on the MLK…
Lets take it a step further and limit trucks of 80,000 lbs to 50-100 miles of a rail head, and ship everything by RAIL thereby making the highways safer, reducing wear on highways and saving fuel. This seems the way to go when one train can remove 100’s of trucks from the road.
See http://www.stopbiggertrucks.org/
We need more safety, less greed. Limit truck size and weight. Limit driver hours to humane standards. Pay drivers fair wages for difficult and dangerous work.
crash, you are correct about the additional wear and tear on pavements.
I am not necessarily for this, but for you people who want most things moved by rail, you have one serious flaw with that. In order to accomodate what you desire, we will need to build a lot of new rail and get a lot of new right-of-ways for those rails (which the railroads cannot afford by the way). The rail infrastructure is nowhere near capable of doing what you want.