pOwned!

[Bob Noel]

wait a minute, how can people make definitive claims that a speed camera
cant prevent speeding or running a red light? Doesn't everyone realize
that a cop sitting at a light or along the road will cause a *lot* of people
to slow down? How many of us on POA will deliberately blow by a marked
cruiser?

I'm not saying the a camera will prevent all speeding or running lights, but
I know that I'm one person that is less likely to go over the speed limit.

 

[wsuffa]

wait a minute, how can people make definitive claims that a speed camera
cant prevent speeding or running a red light?

Bob,

You may be right (and you certainly are with respect to officers sitting by the side of the road).

The problem is that *most* speed cameras and virtually *all* red light cameras are at fixed locations. Meaning that folks slow down for only that stretch of road, then immediately speed up again. Many folks slow *well* below the limit because they believe the cameras are set to a tight tolerance - from personal observation, some folks slam on their brakes, causing a ripple effect. I've also seen where the city lowered the speed limit right by the camera, but left it the same elsewhere.

Case in point: there are cameras on New York Avenue in Washington, DC. One on the inbound side near the XM Building, the other outbound on the "expressway" portion headed toward the BW parkway, right adjacent to the Maryland state line. New York Avenue is a *major* commuter route into the city. Even the AAA here in Washington has singled out these cameras as "revenue generators" as the outbound side is just before the speed limit increases and tags commuters headed home to Maryland, and the inbound side is on a stretch with a number of traffic lights, tagging inbound commuters. I've seen folks slam on brakes and nearly be rear-ended on the inbound side - I nearly got hit one day when someone swerved into my lane to avoid a braker. DC has no commuter tax, but badly wants one.

 

[Ted]

If it works on 50% of the 16 year olds from the get-go and another 25% after they've had their first speeding ticket (and daddy's insurance went up 20%) then it would have a measurable impact on safety. Would you not agree that if every 16 year old were not given any direction (no speed limit laws) there would be a much higher rate of speeding among said teens?

Actually, I would say it has virtually no effect on 16 year olds. Maybe the 16 year olds you knew were different than the ones I knew, but basically they were either the sort who would drive the speed limit (or if one didn't exist, they'd go with the flow of traffic), or they were the sort who would speed regardless of the effects, because 16 year olds generally believe they're invincible and have no idea of consequences. I did and still do base very little of my driving on speed limits, other than as a reference. The number of speeding tickets I got in college (mostly in the 90-100 mph range) did not deter my driving fast. The main reason that I've slowed down now is that my truck gets 12 mpg at 85 mph. I drive faster in the -Jag. The tickets I got didn't deter me from driving fast at all. Also, I've had 0 accidents in my 280,000+ miles of driving over the past 8 years, so I must be doing something right.

Ok, Ted, how about this? Why have drunk driving laws? Who says that I'm not fit to drive at .08? They don't know my body. They don't know my tolerance levels. They can't stop me from getting behind the wheel after 15 shots and driving home. I can make that choice.

You are referring to two completely different things here. Impaired driving laws (be it drinking, drugs, etc.) have to do with your physical ability to operate a vehicle being deteriorated. Speed limits have nothing to do with a deterioration of abilities.

I had one person tell me it was physically impossible to safely travel above 65 mph, period. I asked him about airplanes, and he shut up. Should we restrict aircraft travel to 65 mph?

Just because somebody can make a choice to break a law doesn't mean that the law doesn't have a purpose. Additionally, just because you don't like a law doesn't mean that it doesn't have a greater purpose in society.

Right, but in the case of speed limits that point is not safety, despite what propaganda would have you believe. It initially had to do with saving gas, as has already been stated. Interestingly, this past summer when gas was hoving in the $4/gallon range, I recall the "Slow Down - Save a Life" signs change to "Slow Down - Save Gas". While I think the point was to use something that would hit people a little closer to home (their wallet), that is more in line with the initial intent. Since, speed limits have served to be revenue generators for state and local governments, nothing more, and that is what they continue to be. A "suggested speed" would be appropriate, but a speed limit is not. At least a number of states have increased speed limits to more reasonable numbers (75-80 mph), but I would still prefer to have it just be a recommended speed. Driving wrecklessly is different from driving fast, and should still remain an offense for which one can get cited.

 

[wbarnhill]

Ted,

Is it safe to drive 65 on the interstate?
On a 4 lane highway?
On a 2 lane highway?
On an unpaved road?
In a school zone?
In a residential area?
In inclement weather?
In heavy traffic?

It isn't one size fits all. Some of those can be yes, some can be no, but at some point there is an unacceptable speed for each of those instances.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The problem, folks, is that while YOU may be able to safely drive 120, not EVERYONE can safely drive 120, and therein lies the problem. *Speed* is not the problem. *Difference in speed* is the problem.

Until they build a road for 120+ mph, one for 100-120, one for 80-100, etc. we all need to be going roughly the same speed, which seems to be around 10 over what the speed limit sign says.

 

[wbarnhill]

The problem, folks, is that while YOU may be able to safely drive 120, not EVERYONE can safely drive 120, and therein lies the problem. *Speed* is not the problem. *Difference in speed* is the problem.

Until they build a road for 120+ mph, one for 100-120, one for 80-100, etc. we all need to be going roughly the same speed, which seems to be around 10 over what the speed limit sign says.

I end up around 5 - 7 over, just because I'm overly paranoid about SC cops, even with my radar detector.

 

[SCCutler]

The problem, folks, is that while YOU may be able to safely drive 120, not EVERYONE can safely drive 120, and therein lies the problem. *Speed* is not the problem. *Difference in speed* is the problem.

Until they build a road for 120+ mph, one for 100-120, one for 80-100, etc. we all need to be going roughly the same speed, which seems to be around 10 over what the speed limit sign says.

Actually, Kent, most roads have a "natural" speed, a rate at which most drivers will tend to drive absent some compelling reason not to (unreasonably-low speed limits, excessive congestion, unusual weather). This is known in traffic research as the "85th-percentile speed," because around 85% of drivers will drive at, or very near, this speed. Logically enough, that is usually the safest speed for any given road (safest per mile driven), and if you try to force traffic to go fsater- or slower- than that speed, you will increase hazard.

For most well-designed rural interstates, it will settle around 75-80 mph, and the interesting thing is, even in the absence of any speed limit, the natural speed for the road will control... and research has proven this. Thus, the notion that, "If you raise the speed limit, everyone will go ten over it..." has been proven, time and again, to be myth.

In rural west Texas (out Dave's way), the speed limit on portions of I20 is 80, and few drivers exceed it by much... it's a good, and safe, speed.

It is when you try to force traffic to go more slowly than the best speed for the road, that you create difficulty and danger, by creating substantial differences in speed, along with some self-anointed "enforcers," who decide that their obligation to yield right of way to faster-moving traffic ends, if their speed is (what they believe to be) at the posted limit.

---

Edit:

The above was from my general knowledge and prior research, which (by the way) also comports with common sense.

Here's an interesting summary: http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

It all depends upon whether your goal is revenue, or safety. Most speed-limit enforcement is revenue-driven, not safety-driven.

 

[rottydaddy]

I dunno, Ted. Seems like you'd only hate speed cameras if you're speeding. Try strapping your four month old baby into a car and heading out on the roads some day. It puts a whole new perspective on things when cars swerve into your lane while the driver is speeding AND texting.

I understand that; I'm almost as concerned about my own safety on the road as I would about my kids', if I had any. It's scary out there.
As I often say: "It's not a race... it's a death race!" Most drivers are simply not evolved enough to be trusted with a ton of mobile steel, IMHO.

But this very valid concern is what they use to push stuff like this on us... and I don't think it helps enhance safety, just based on what I see when on the road.

What bugs me even more about it is the logical extension of this: traffic cam, street cam, terminal cam, workplace cam, school cam... home cam? I mean, why care if the gummint is watching you all the time if you're not doing anything wrong?

 

[sba55]

Spike,

In addition to your post, I'd also say that the 85th percentile speed is not just influenced by what's safe, but also by the speed range people are used to.

I don't enjoy driving. Usually, I want to get to where I'm going as quickly as possible. There are roads here, particularly at night, where I'd love to go 120. Or 150. There's nobody around. Honestly, there's no point in going slower.

I like the idea of not having a speed limit at times when there's little traffic.

-Felix

 

[SCCutler]

Spike,

In addition to your post, I'd also say that the 85th percentile speed is not just influenced by what's safe, but also by the speed range people are used to.

I don't enjoy driving. Usually, I want to get to where I'm going as quickly as possible. There are roads here, particularly at night, where I'd love to go 120. Or 150. There's nobody around. Honestly, there's no point in going slower.

I like the idea of not having a speed limit at times when there's little traffic.

-Felix

Felix:

We have that now. For me, it's spelled V35A, for you, it's BE58P

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Actually, Kent, most roads have a "natural" speed, a rate at which most drivers will tend to drive absent some compelling reason not to (unreasonably-low speed limits, excessive congestion, unusual weather). This is known in traffic research as the "85th-percentile speed," because around 85% of drivers will drive at, or very near, this speed. Logically enough, that is usually the safest speed for any given road (safest per mile driven), and if you try to force traffic to go fsater- or slower- than that speed, you will increase hazard.

For most well-designed rural interstates, it will settle around 75-80 mph, and the interesting thing is, even in the absence of any speed limit, the natural speed for the road will control... and research has proven this. Thus, the notion that, "If you raise the speed limit, everyone will go ten over it..." has been proven, time and again, to be myth.

In rural west Texas (out Dave's way), the speed limit on portions of I20 is 80, and few drivers exceed it by much... it's a good, and safe, speed.

It is when you try to force traffic to go more slowly than the best speed for the road, that you create difficulty and danger, by creating substantial differences in speed, along with some self-anointed "enforcers," who decide that their obligation to yield right of way to faster-moving traffic ends, if their speed is (what they believe to be) at the posted limit.

---

Edit:

The above was from my general knowledge and prior research, which (by the way) also comports with common sense.

Here's an interesting summary: http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

It all depends upon whether your goal is revenue, or safety. Most speed-limit enforcement is revenue-driven, not safety-driven.

Spike: I agree with what you say, but there's a problem: You've gotta get rid of the trucks.

MANY trucks are governed at 65mph to give reasonable fuel consumption. Mine was, and I averaged upper 6's - 6.8, 6.9 mpg during the summer. OTOH, one morning I departed Aberdeen, SD with a nasty ~30mph headwind, and my fuel burn was insane - I dropped to 2.3 mpg. That's 3x the fuel burn to go from 65mph to 95mph relative wind. After the fuel price spike last year, many companies reduced the speed of their trucks even further. JB Hunt is still at 62, but Schneider dropped to 60, England to under 60, Swift back down to 62... I sure feel sorry for those guys!

Until there are separate roads for the trucks - Something that was actually rumored to be happening in Texas - Well, the speed limits aren't gonna go much higher. (75 mph being the highest state speed limit currently.) And believe me, the trucks would like the separate roads even more than the cars! I hope it does happen somewhere at some point, the difference in accident rates would be VERY interesting.

I agree about the "enforcers" too, but they're breaking a separate law.

You want real idiocy - In California, the car speed limit is 70 and most do WAY more than that (Felix!), probably averaging between 80 and 85. The truck speed limit is 55. Illinois does the same thing, it's a 65/55 split and the cars do 90 because Chicago police don't enforce traffic laws and the state patrol tends to hang out in the country. I always went as fast as I could in both CA and IL despite the speed limit, simply because otherwise I'd have to be looking back (in the mirrors) more than forwards.

 

[SCCutler]

Kent:

I agree that a separate path for heavy-haulers would be preferable- oh, wait, there is one! It's called a railroad!

Joking aside (not entirely joking), what you describe is readily handled by right-of-way rules- slower traffic keep right. Until the road has enough traffic that it cannot physically contain all of the vehicles using it, ROW works.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I agree that a separate path for heavy-haulers would be preferable- oh, wait, there is one! It's called a railroad!

Grrrrrrrr.

In reality, it's quite difficult to accomplish the same mission with a railroad that you can with a truck, and vice versa. Rails are great for things that don't need to be where they're going any time soon, and there's a metric assload of stuff all going in the same direction. Trucks are good for JIT type stuff, easily stolen stuff (ie consumer goods), and covering the vast areas of the country not served by rails. Rails are not going to eliminate trucks, nor should they.

Joking aside (not entirely joking), what you describe is readily handled by right-of-way rules- slower traffic keep right. Until the road has enough traffic that it cannot physically contain all of the vehicles using it, ROW works.

Until Ted or Felix comes around a curve at 120mph and has the choice whether to get killed by the Swift truck, or the JB Hunt that the Swift is passing, or taking his (not very good) chances off the road.

I've been that car (I was going 118, not 120). Cars take a surprising distance to slow down from 118 to 65!

I think 75 is a reasonable speed limit for most interstate situations, and that it should not be higher than 75.

 

[SCCutler]

Grrrrrrrr.

In reality, it's quite difficult to accomplish the same mission with a railroad that you can with a truck, and vice versa. Rails are great for things that don't need to be where they're going any time soon, and there's a metric assload of stuff all going in the same direction. Trucks are good for JIT type stuff, easily stolen stuff (ie consumer goods), and covering the vast areas of the country not served by rails. Rails are not going to eliminate trucks, nor should they.

Kent:

I was (I'll admit) baiting you. Rail and trucks serve utterly different needs, and neither can replace the other. I do believe that there are some areas of shipping which have shifted from rail, which should not have.

But you sure bit on that lure!

Until Ted or Felix comes around a curve at 120mph and has the choice whether to get killed by the Swift truck, or the JB Hunt that the Swift is passing, or taking his (not very good) chances off the road.

I've been that car (I was going 118, not 120). Cars take a surprising distance to slow down from 118 to 65!

I think 75 is a reasonable speed limit for most interstate situations, and that it should not be higher than 75.

I cannot fathom a way to make most existing US highways safe for 120mph, without a quantum shift in US attitudes and laws regarding driver training and licensure.

I'd call for 80 in truly rural areas, but would accept 75; if we had actual, legitimate safety enforcement (and speed-limit enforcement is not safety enforcement), most ntably in the area of right-of-way and traffic flow, 75 would work very well, indeed.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was (I'll admit) baiting you.

I know. I figured you'd be disappointed in your baiting skills if you didn't elicit a from me.

I do believe that there are some areas of shipping which have shifted from rail, which should not have.

Yep - Trucks are very inefficent when compared 1-to-1 with rail (which, as stated before, doesn't quite give the whole picture). The whole idea of just-in-time manufacturing is the biggest problem, I think, not necessarily the shipping of any particular type of cargo via any particular method - Or is that what you meant by things that should not have shifted to trucks?

But you sure bit on that lure!

Hey, I've gotta tell the other side too! Oddly enough, I had thought about getting a job as a railroad engineer - I should look into that. I've pretty much seen the country by road, I think it'd be interesting to see it by rail too - I'm sure it's vastly different, not seeing the same things all the time (Darn near every exit off the Interstate has a gas station or two, a restaurant or two, and maybe a hotel or two, it seems!)

I cannot fathom a way to make most existing US highways safe for 120mph, without a quantum shift in US attitudes and laws regarding driver training and licensure.

Probably a lot of rebuilding too, for a smoother road surface and re-banking all the turns. It'd be a helluva lot of work!

I'd call for 80 in truly rural areas, but would accept 75; if we had actual, legitimate safety enforcement (and speed-limit enforcement is not safety enforcement), most ntably in the area of right-of-way and traffic flow, 75 would work very well, indeed.

Yup! It always ticked me off that the people who were weaving back and forth, cutting between cars on the interstate in fairly heavy traffic with only inches to spare on both sides never seemed to get caught, while lots of speeders did. It also always ticked me off that Illinois has a pretty good chunk of the interstate in the Chicago area with a 45mph speed limit for no good reason, especially since the average speed on that stretch is probably 75-80 if not even more! Of course, they never enforced it at all, so maybe that's part of the problem - But with the exception of the curve just past the express/local split on the Dan Ryan just south of downtown, there is no reason for it to be lower than 65 - It's well-separated from people and city traffic.

Oh well. Surely someone would go screaming and crying that we can't have that, it'll hurt the children and how can you awful elected officials even suggest such a thing, and we're gonna campaign against you...

 

[EdFred]

My two cents on non-urban (and some urban) interstates. All the trucks get the right lane. Not the right two lanes. ONE lane. Nothing worse then sitting behind the truck going 1mph faster than the other truck for 8 miles as they clog up two lanes. Hey, that 500 miles you have to run, only takes 15 minutes longer at 60 than it does 61. Now that we've eliminated the problem of trucks passing each other and screaming up on them...

Speed limit by vehicle type. Trucks, SUVs, min-vans, your 2.0-4.0L sedans...65-75. Sorry, deal with it. Those vehicles are not made to handle the higher speeds. Now, you have a Jag, Vette, Cobra, or anything else that is made to handle high speeds, the world is your racetrack. And if the states/feds wanted to make some money off of not behing able to ticket the guy doing 120 or 150, make it necessary to get a high performance endorsement (and some sort of transmitter you can turn on so you dont get pulled over) on your DL just like we do on our PCs. Plus, we need to make sure that someone is actually capable of driving a car at high speeds.

Of course this would also require adding a third lane to many interstates that are currently 2 lanes, and enforcing the "stay right except to pass" laws that everyone ignores. But hey, the money for adding the extra lane could be generated from the high performance endorsements.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My two cents on non-urban (and some urban) interstates. All the trucks get the right lane. Not the right two lanes. ONE lane. Nothing worse then sitting behind the truck going 1mph faster than the other truck for 8 miles as they clog up two lanes. Hey, that 500 miles you have to run, only takes 15 minutes longer at 60 than it does 61. Now that we've eliminated the problem of trucks passing each other and screaming up on them...

Funny you should mention that, Ed.

It only takes about 160 feet of relative motion for one truck to pass another. If the faster one is only going 1 mph faster, It will take them one minute and 49 seconds to complete the maneuver. If the rest of the traffic is doing 75, it's quite easy to pick a hole in the traffic so that nobody else has to slow down.

In reality, it's much more common for the faster truck to have a good 3 mph relative pass rate, meaning it takes about 30 seconds to pass. And I've passed plenty of other trucks with a 3-5 mph relative rate of motion, after picking a pretty good-sized hole, only to have some ******* going 95+ mph come screaming up on my tail, honking like an idiot, and when I signal and begin to move over with a 10-foot gap between me and the other truck, the idiot takes the opportunity to jump between us and go flying up on my right, sometimes on the shoulder because I've already started moving over. Once the tractor goes, the driver can't make the trailer magically reverse direction - Some people don't seem to realize that, simple as it seems.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It only takes about 125 feet of relative motion for one truck to pass another. If the faster one is only going 1 mph faster, It will take them one minute and 25 seconds to complete the maneuver. If the rest of the traffic is doing 75, it's quite easy to pick a hole in the traffic so that nobody else has to slow down.

OBTW... *even if* you got cut off and had to sit behind the truck for that entire time...

In 1:49 at 65 mph, you'd go 1.97 miles. In 1:49 at 75 mph, you'd go 2.27 miles, a difference of 0.3 miles, or a difference in your travel time of 14.4 seconds.

Next time you decide to pull a stupid maneuver to try and get in front of a truck who's going to pass another, think about that. Is it worth it to risk your life to save 14.4 seconds?

Some people, apparently, think so. I actually saw someone get killed when they tried to save three seconds.

Be safe out there, folks.

 

[EdFred]

First, I never cut between trucks.

Second, it's a bit more than 1:25 to safely pass, and takes more than 125ft of relative motion. If Truck A is a 53' trailer with a sleeper cab, you've got to have at around 75' of truck and trailer. And for arguments sake, truck B is also a 53' sleeper cab. I don't normally see tailgating amongst truckers and I thought (from memory) trucks needed to leave at least 150' between them on Michigan interstates. So, we've got 150' between truck B and truck A when B decides to pass. I'm not one to cut over so, I sit and wait. Truck B needs to cover 150 just to get his nose to the tail of truck A. Another 75 to get even with the nose, another 75 feet to have his tail be even with A's nose, and another 150 feet before he can move over. That's 450 feet that I count.

Truck A covers 5280ft in 60 seconds at 60mph.
Truck B covers 5368ft in 60 seconds at 61mph.

At 60 vs 61 is would take over 5 miles to make the pass. And that doesnt even take into account that Truck B is carrying 40,000lbs and and always decides to make the pass uphill vs truck A running empty....oops...he was going to pass him...now A's pulling back ahead of B and we get to wait longer.

And it's going to be a bit hard to get truck B going 5mph faster when that governor limits him to 62.

In that 5 minutes I'm waiting, I'm over a mile and a half behind where I would have been at 80mph.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

At 60 vs 61 is would take over 5 miles to make the pass. And that doesnt even take into account that Truck B is carrying 40,000lbs and and always decides to make the pass uphill vs truck A running empty....oops...he was going to pass him...now A's pulling back ahead of B and we get to wait longer.

And it's going to be a bit hard to get truck B going 5mph faster when that governor limits him to 62.

In that 5 minutes I'm waiting, I'm over a mile and a half behind where I would have been at 80mph.

Ed's writeup more closely matches the experience I've had when a truck decides to pass another. That said, the only good thing about it is that after Truck B completes the pass (FINALLY), I've got 1.5 miles of nobody else to deal with, as they've all pulled WAY ahead.

The only thing worse is when I have to stop for gas or lunch, and then find myself behind these two trucks... and go through it all over again. B)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Second, it's a bit more than 1:25 to safely pass, and takes more than 125ft of relative motion. If Truck A is a 53' trailer with a sleeper cab, you've got to have at around 75' of truck and trailer. And for arguments sake, truck B is also a 53' sleeper cab.

You're right, I forgot the tractors. Duh. It's only about 70' total though. I'll go back and fix that.

EDIT: It went up from 11.2 seconds to a whopping 14.4 seconds. And to clarify, I'm NOT saying that it only takes that long for the trucks to pass each other - That takes a couple of minutes. I'm saying that slowing down from 75mph for that couple of minutes is only going to delay your arrival at your destination by 14.4 seconds.

I don't normally see tailgating amongst truckers and I thought (from memory) trucks needed to leave at least 150' between them on Michigan interstates.

Never heard of that one. And when one truck is going faster than the one in front of him, and there's still cars passing him, he'll usually just keep the speed up and jump over in the last 10 feet behind the next guy if he has to, because when you slow those beasts down, it takes a while to get them back up to speed. And generally when one is passing another and there's a big line of cars behind, the other guy will flash the passer over almost as soon as the passer's tail clears his nose. So, call it 150 feet. It's still a matter of seconds that you actually lose on your trip time.

I actually did some real-world timing and calculations on the road one day, and I didn't have a single scenario that would have cost the driver of the car more than 30 seconds on their trip.

So, we've got 150' between truck B and truck A when B decides to pass. I'm not one to cut over so, I sit and wait.

Which is something that almost nobody does, and that's why trucks don't bother moving over to pass super-early when there's cars coming because that gets a stream of cars going on your right and cutting in between the two trucks. It only takes one idiot to start it, and then all the other sheeple fall in line and do the same until it's quite obvious that the next one to make the attempt is going to be turned into street pizza.

And that doesnt even take into account that Truck B is carrying 40,000lbs and and always decides to make the pass uphill vs truck A running empty....oops...he was going to pass him...now A's pulling back ahead of B and we get to wait longer.

A pulls back ahead of B, and if all of those folks hadn't decided to try and get around him on the right at the last minute, he'd be able to move back over. But there isn't yet enough room for the cars to get between the trucks quite yet, and the three cars that are to the right of B won't get out of the way to let him over - After all, they're more important than everyone else, so they're going to wait until B slows down enough that they can sneak through, and let everyone ELSE slow down and get out of the way so B can get back over. But the next guy is more important than everyone else too, so the truck driver sits there in the left lane with his right turn signal on and a continuous stream of impatient cars continues to pass him on the right.

And it's going to be a bit hard to get truck B going 5mph faster when that governor limits him to 62.

Seriously, I rarely had that sort of issue. Of course, my truck and all the others at my company were governed at 65 on the cruise and 67 with the pedal on the floor, so we had a bit of extra oomph to pass that Schneider truck going 64.5 mph.

Until recently, J.B. Hunt was the only company still governed at 62.

In that 5 minutes I'm waiting, I'm over a mile and a half behind where I would have been at 80mph.

If it literally took you 5 minutes to get past, well, that truck driver is either an ******* or a rookie. The rookie will at least learn from the experience and go for a bigger hole between the cars behind him the next time. It takes a while for the new guys to figure out "traffic dynamics."

But frankly, in 3/4 of a million miles, the number of idiot jerks in "4-wheelers" trying to commit suicide by truck is orders of magnitude greater than the number of *******s in trucks... Sometimes you may think the guy is an ******* based on what you can see, but he might be trying to do you a favor based on the much larger number of things he can see. I've been flipped off for moving over to let a guy pass when he came up on me so fast I didn't see him until I was already in the left lane... And the number of other situations I could tell you about, well... I wouldn't have fingers left by the time I got halfway done typing that up.

It was always interesting watching trainees learn this stuff. Most CDL drivers will tell you that they learned more about driving a car than driving a truck when they got their CDL and just a tiny bit of experience under their belt. With more experience, you can see the idiots coming a mile away.

 

[Ted]

Kent, I have a question on your speed being governed. I've been passed by a lot of trucks going significantly faster than your governed speeds, and I see a number of trucks going in the range of 70-75 mph. Is there something else going on here?

Also, having towed where momentum is important, I understand the view of the truckers. However, I've found that in general I'm stuck behind trucks for several minutes when they pass eachother, and it seems that they always decide to pass on an uphill...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, I have a question on your speed being governed. I've been passed by a lot of trucks going significantly faster than your governed speeds, and I see a number of trucks going in the range of 70-75 mph. Is there something else going on here?

Sorry it took me so long to get to this, I saw it on my iPhone (and left it open there to remember!) but I figured my response would be longer than I wanted to type on-screen.

Some trucks aren't governed, some are governed faster than others. And, of course, with heavy loads going downhill at all, you can beat your governed speed handily. (I, uh, know someone who had their 67-mph governed truck up to 102 out in Montana once... ) If someone's passing you at 75mph on the flat, they're either governed that high, or not governed. Most companies are governed in the 62-68 range, and most owner-operators are not. If you see a Pete 379 or a Kenworth W900 or a Freightliner Coronado doing that, it's almost certainly an owner-operator.

Also, having towed where momentum is important, I understand the view of the truckers. However, I've found that in general I'm stuck behind trucks for several minutes when they pass eachother, and it seems that they always decide to pass on an uphill...

If the hill is that big, there's usually a 3rd lane where trucks aren't allowed. Well, everywhere except I-80 in PA where you are. Bug your friendly state DOT engineers to fix that.

However - And I know y'all may hate me for this - But as much as I know it sucks to be stuck behind trucks for more than 10 seconds, well, if you see a truck with their left-hand signal on near the bottom of a hill, let 'em do their thing. Unless they're *really* light (in which case they'd probably let you pass before they passed the truck in front of them), any speed lost at the bottom of the hill is gone until they're over the top of the hill. Yeah, you may have to slow down quite a bit. Yeah, it might not be over in 30 seconds. You'll live. If you have to slow down to 45 for a couple of minutes, it'll only cost you a minute. If that truck has to be stuck behind the slower, heavier truck in front of him for the duration, it can cost them many minutes depending on the length of the hill.

See, let's say the guy in front is fully loaded - 46,000 pounds of ketchup, paper, beer, etc. The guy behind him who wants to pass only has 15,000 pounds of DVD players, shoes, etc. When they hit the hill, the 46K pounder will drop to around 25mph fairly quickly, while the 15k pounder will not. If you don't let the 15K pounder pass at the bottom, he's going to be stuck behind the 46K pounder. If he manages to get out when they're still going 45mph, it'll take him longer to pass but he should be able to maintain 45, or close to it, the rest of the way up. If he's stuck behind the other guy until they're going 25, he's pretty much screwed. It'll take him a LONG time to pass, and he might get back up to 30 if he's lucky.

What's that mean? Well, the guy who would have burned right up the hill at 65 if you'd have waited for him just briefly at the bottom of the hill will be stuck at 25-30 instead. On a longer grade, say 10 miles, that makes a huge difference for the trucker (over 10 minutes) while it will cost you less than a minute to keep him rolling. Also, if you don't let him pass at the bottom of the hill, he's going to want to make another attempt after you're passed, which will mean he won't be able to pass the other guy as fast, meaning any other cars that come up behind him will also be slowed down more, so maybe instead of costing him 10 minutes, you'll cost him 7 minutes and the 5 cars that stack up behind him by the time he's finished passing an additional minute or two apiece. Seems a rather selfish way to save yourself 20 seconds doesn't it?

Another thing I used to see all the time would be people who'd come up on me while I was passing another truck on an uphill, and they'd get right on my bumper, flashing their lights, beeping their horns, etc. Now let's think folks. If I do decide to move over to let you pass, how do I do that? I *SLOW DOWN.* If you're on my bumper, I'm not gonna do that lest you run into me.

Ironically, some of the same people I actually made the effort to get over so they could pass me would be the same ones hogging the left lane and getting in my way after we crested the hill. Other times, I'd see someone coming up behind me, and I'd get over so they could pass me, and they never even had to slow down to my speed, but they'd flip me off anyway. Well gee buddy, I'm sure glad I got out of your way now! Sure didn't lead me to want to get out of the next guy's way, ya know? Run into a half dozen of these *******s on the same day, and nobody's in the mood to be nice to anybody any more.

 

[Geico266]

Get off my road, I've been driving longer than you have!!

It's my road though!