Truckers Back a National 65-mph Speed Limit

...............

POOOP!!!

blahhh of MI @ May 06, 2008 08:59:12 AM

Speed Limiters

ATA's proposal is all about reducing competition. ATA thinks that the faster speed truck lines are stealing "their" drivers, and that expedited trucking is stealing "their" freight. Now they want all trucks to slow down so that the ATA-member trucks aren't such an unsafe nuisance on the highway. They want to force a split speed limit on the 60% majority of the US that has had faster speed limits for many years, despite numerous exhaustive recent studies that show no safety benefit in split speed limits. Many of the ATA-member companies tried to keep their truck speeds low back in the mid-1990s when speed limits were raised in many States and were forced to raise their truck speeds in order to compete and keep more of the drivers that they trained.

ATA's business is the high-volume/low profit, highly competitive, truckload freight business, where a few pennies per mile make or break their operation. What is the largest discount retailer in America? Many of these ATA trucklines operate in a similar manner. They are trying to be the cheapest truckload carriers operating. They have decided that they need to cut their costs and that no other truckline or shipper or receiver should get any say in the matter. Just-in-time manufacturing is a fact these days. General Motors has been using JIT delivery of assembly parts to reduce inventories and cut costs for over 20 years now. Many other companies have tried to cut their inventories through JIT supply too. ATA is now trying to demand that all companies using JIT methods should be forced into maintaining larger inventories so that the ATA member trucklines can reduce their costs without competitve interferance from any other truckline.

There is a driver shortage. For every 3 experienced drivers leaving the business only one new driver is coming into the business. Many of ATA's member companies have long been known as driver-training outfits where new drivers were often paid less, kept out on the road and away from home more, and led into leasing vehicles without the experience to be successful in large numbers. After a driver got sufficient experience to get a better job they left the training outfits. With the shortage of drivers the ATA-member trucklines want to make it impossible for other trucklines to compete for drivers by offering faster trucks or providing more time at home with their families. ATA wants the Federal Government to change the law to make it illegal to compete with them except on costs. Such a change of law will cost many mainly experienced jobs at other carriers, and cost many of the trucking industry's customers a substantial amount of money too.

A large percentage of current trucking is expedited and/or less-than-truckload. Many of the ATA-member trucklines do not even offer these types of services. Fresh food carriers and air-freight carriers have long needed to offer high-speed time-sensitive service and ATA wants to cost the businesses that rely on high-speed, JIT service lots of money. They want to stifle competition. They want the Federal government to force all competitors to see it their way. A reduction of 10 mph in combination with the current hours-of-service law would cost 12 hours extra on a 1,200-mile trip, plus another 12 hours extra on the return. Just the cost of the 12-hour delay to the shipper of fresh beef, for instance, would be in the neighborhood of $4,000 to $5,000 in lost profit, for one truckload. The truckline that hauls this load only makes $2,000 to $2,500. Forcing all truck speeds down in the 60% of America with faster speed limits will cost fresh food shippers tremendous amounts of money. Often the shelf life is measured in just a few days upon arrival at the destination. Will a reduction in truck speed help or hurt companies that haul fresh food now? What about air freight and other expedited carriers? ATA is really tired of seeing these trucks fly by their trucks, and may even be operating an unofficial policy of waiting until the last second to try to cut-off faster trucks. This problem is up by many, many times in the last few years, and directly coincides with the push by ATA to stifle competition. And the ATA-member trucklines drivers are some of the biggest offenders.

The worst yearly safety record posted by the trucking industry in terms of fatalities per 100 million miles operated by the industry was 1979, when the speed limit was 55 mph everywhere. Look at the study that the State of Virginia paid for on split speeds. Or look at the study that AAA paid for. Both studies were designed to be "studies to end all studies". Or look at the University of Arkansas most recent study. No recent study suggests a safety benefit from split speed limits. In Illinois after all of this evidence was presented to their legislature and both Houses voted by an average of 75% to 25% to approve an end to the split speed there, it was only an impassioned speech from the Governor about all of the "lost jobs" that convinced the legislature not to override his veto. It seems that the State Patrol there is worried about the loss of some of their jobs if the speed limit is raised. The unions are worried that their travel speed contract concessions will become a contract issue. As it is now it takes 2 drivers to run a roundtrip from Chicago to St. Louis in 11 hours, a whole 289 miles downtown to downtown. At 65 MPH that figure is reduced to only one driver, which would be a great increase in productivity and a great reduction in costs to customers. Is the main reason to have split speed limits to save some high-paying less- or non-productive jobs? Is the ATA effort to lower truck speeds designed to cost their trucking-industry competitiors in productivity terms, requiring more drivers to spend more time on the road, for lesser daily wages? The ATA proposal seems designed to cost many competing trucklines quite a bit of money or to make it possible that some experienced drivers might find the ATA members more attractive. Their action has "fight to the death" written all over it.

Imagine if a consortium of a few of the biggest oldline airlines got the Federal Government to force the discount carriers to hire only union workers at the scale that they were paying in their own labor contracts, and to adopt some of the more restrictive seperation of labor agreements. Such a decision would kill the low-cost carriers. There would be no choice other than the color of the paint on the tail of the aircraft. And that is what ATA and its members want for the trucking industry, and anyone with a differing idea be damned. ATA does not want to allow any industry to use any truckline that can get their freight there faster than 62 mph. Basically ATA wants to undo two decades of increases in productivity and wages for the vast majority of America's workers. ATA wants every other truckline to be forced to compete with them on their terms. And ATA wants the Federal Government to force compliance.

Maybe it's time to go in a different direction and make it more difficult for the ATA members to compete with the rest of trucking. It's about reducing costs and increasing productivity. It's about providing competitive service and providing for the needs of the customers. It's not about creating a permanent monopoly.

Why does ATA need the help of the Federal Government to stifle competition? If this proposal is approved count on more trucks on the highway to make-up for the loss of productivity. Count on spending more time on the road and away from home to earn the same amount as now.. Count on more broken families and single-parent households among the several million non-ATA drivers. Count on higher costs to do business here in America and more companies fleeing to Mexico or overseas. Count on higher fresh food costs. Can we as a nation afford to give-up 2 decades worth of increases in productivity because ATA wants to stifle their competition. Can we experienced drivers give-up 20 years of wage increases and driver quality of life improvements? Can we allow ATA to take away all of the progress of the last 20 years?

ATA's proposal will make America a higher-cost, less-competitive, environment for doing business than it is now. They are trying to guarantee themselves eternal profitability while immediately killing any competition. And they are trying to cost America millions upon millions more lost jobs in industries which can't compete. There will be NO SAFETY BENEFIT when there are many more trucks required to get the same amount of productivity accomplished as now. It is not said where all of these new drivers will come from. My guess is that they will be inexperienced. But, that is what many of ATA's members are used to. Lots of low-experience drivers who don't know any better will fill the new seats. They will spend much more time away from their families for lower wages. You think that road-rage is bad now, wait until then.

Railroads? All that they can compete on is for non- time-sensitive freight where the customer stockpiles huge amounts of product. The product that the railroads offer would greatly increase costs for most American industries that now depend on high-speed JIT service to help reduce their costs. And in an awfully lot of places the old unused rails were torn out long ago and the old high-rise factories along the rail lines are gone too.. Railroads require centralization to work. For the last 60 years America has become less-centralized. I don't see railroads providing much of an option for most of America's industries. It is a very different technology made for a much different era.

How about banning all but commercial vehicles from freeways? I'll bet that such a move would cut way down on road-rage directed at the trucking industry. Yeah, it would cost a whole lot of people a little extra time, and some a lot of extra time. But think how it would benefit all of those little towns bypassed by the freeways.

Banning cars off of freeways is about as radical as ATA's proposal to get the Federal Government to undo 20 years of improvement in productivity in order to stifle ATA's competition. Their proposal has huge economic consequences all across America. And it won't help safety at all, at least not until millions of people are laid-off from uncompetitive industries which will then reduce the need for more trucks to make-up for the lost productivity.

Do we want ATA as a permanent very powerful monopoly?

Would you enjoy commuting to downtown Chicago on Roosevelt the whole way from Batavia? Or would it make it more likely that you would take the train?

I wonder if banning cars off of freeways would have any effect on the value of suburban real estate? Or inner-city real estate? There are drawbacks and there are those who would benefit. Imagine how valuable land near mass transit stops in the city would become if cars were banned off of freeways?

If ATA's proposal is adopted their members stand to benefit greatly. And like the suburban homeowners, many of us would suffer greatly if ATA's proposal is forced onto their competition. I believe that the drawbacks of ATA's national truck speed proposal greatly exceed the benefits.

Please write your congressman to oppose ATA's power-grab.

Mark Richardson of CO @ May 05, 2008 04:55:44 AM

65MPH SPEED LIMIT

For all I care those trucker bastards can limit their speed to 35...just don't screw with the car speed limits. The only people who benefitted from the 55 MPH speed limit 20 years ago were the police departments who couldn't hand tickets out fast enough. Studies disproved the 'safer' claims of the 55 MPH speed limit. Finally, I hope you realize most of these truckers are not MENSA members...for chrissakes get real.

M. Fortas of NE @ Apr 29, 2008 00:34:36 AM

My Thoughts

I suppose I read this article a little late, but here are my thoughts.

I am an owner/operator who by personal choice and economics has reduced my speed. Until the outrageous hike in fuel prices I ran the posted speed limit if road and weather conditions permitted. I slowed to 62-65MPH on most interstate highways and have enjoyed quite an increase in fuel economy. At 70 MPH my average was about 5.8-6.2 mpg depending on weight and driving conditions. At 62-65 mph my average mpg is 6.8-7.6 mpg. I have even calculated up to 8.2 mpg with a relatively light load, <20,000 lbs in flat country. Although fuel economy is governed by the terrain and weight of the load, my driving habits and choice of speed factors in heavily. I’ve done the math and that equates to an annual fuel savings of about $12-14,000. For me, it’s a matter of economics. If I need to make time, I will suck it up and run the posted limit, but in most cases I choose to depart with enough time factored in to run a little slower. By the way, when I run slower I stay in the granny lane and only do so when I won’t become a hazard.

It seems as though a few of those posting comments have a serious grudge against those of us who deal with the hassles of traffic and poor driving habits of impatient four-wheelers and CMV (commercial motor vehicle) operators. Traffic safety is a responsibility we all share when we get behind the wheel. A little patience and courtesy go a long way and may even be contagious. Space yourselves out and allow a little more distance for any situation that may arise. If you see a vehicle with its turn signal on, don’t hit the gas to prevent them from making a lane change. When approaching a merge, allow space for oncoming traffic to safely enter the freeway. Don’t tailgate! Don’t wait until the last possible second to get into the right lane to exit. Poor driving habits and impatience affect us all negatively. Accidents drive up the cost of insurance, slows/stops the flow of traffic resulting in greater fuel usage and increases aggressive/impatient driving habits.

Finally, I do not agree with the split speed limit. Slowing CMV’s creates a traffic hazard and fuels the impatience of four-wheelers and CMV operators, causing them to exhibit poor driving habits and become more aggressive.

Dave of GA @ Apr 24, 2008 12:06:31 PM

Speed Limits and ATA CEO

The ATA has to be out of it mind to push for a National Maximum Speed Limit of 65 mph (NMSL). You have to consider who their CEO is - former Kansas Governor Bill Graves. Back in 1996 when states were permitted to set their speed limits after 22 years of federal micromanagement he wanted to keep Kansas' speed limit at 65/55 mph. He got something put in the highway bill delaying implementation and permitting a governor to prevent a given state from reverting back to their pre 1974 speed limit (namely Kansas). Kansas speed limit pre 1974 was 75 mph on Interstate highways, 70 mph including 2 lane highways.

What happened ? Kansas went to a 70 mph speed limit for Interstates and 65 mph for two lane roads which is too slow especially for Western Kansas. The speed limit was passed by the KS legislature as a compromise. The governor grudgingly signed knowing well that he wanted to stick to the old Federal Limits. Neighboring states to Kansas except for Missouri are 75 mph. A special note, Oklahoma is 75 mph for turnpikes but 70 mph for interstates.

Even though Texas is not a neighbor of Kansas, they have the most reasonable speed limits in the country. They have an 80 mph limit for a few select interstates, 75 mph on other interstates and 70 mph including 2 lane highways. Nevada is the next reasonable state with a 75 mph limit on interstates, 70 mph on 2 lane roads, a ban on speed cameras and no points for going a little bit over the limit.

Another concern, organizations like National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - an arm of the US-DOT (NHTSA) want to increase the number of speed cameras. The illustrious governor of Arizona is pushing for them very hard. They are the first state to use them on freeways outside of construction zones. If the NMSL comes back, I am sure speed cameras will be pushed or even mandated by the Federal Government.

The NMSL was a failure and bred contempt towards law enforcement and traffic laws at the time along with breeding poor driving habits such as poor lane discipline as in left lane hogs. I have driven in foreign countries like New Zealand and drivers there have much more courtesy towards other drivers such as staying out of the passing lane on multi-lane highways except to pass as intended.

Brad Cuppy of CO @ Apr 08, 2008 23:38:35 PM

Speed limits

Once again, the American Trucking Association has demonstrated why the men behind the wheel refer to it as the Anti-Trucker Association. If the ATA leadership believes drivers of four-wheeled vehicles will willingly join their speed-limited big trucking company bretheren in obeying a new national speed limit, then I have several bridges in the desert southwest to I'd like to sell them. Motorists know on the interstate system and many other well-engineered American highways, speeds in excess of 65 mph are not unreasonable and, therefore, to be expected. The ATA may be right in suggesting there are benefits to the owner-operator or independent trucker for running at a lower speed. However, it is his decision, not his competitors' decision. If the benefits truly outweigh the costs, he will not need to be told to run slower. As for Con-Way, I would love to see a mass resignation of their drivers. I know I'll never drive for them and I'm very economical driver.

Alan T. Saeger of IL @ Apr 06, 2008 14:03:06 PM

Another split unenforceable limit ??

IF there is something for a particular driver to gain from slowing down in a safe manner , not blocking any lanes then I'm all for it . But trying to make all slow down will not work and is stupid .

There are many stretches of western US freeways where 80 mph is the safe speed for all and a lower limit there would be ignored making these stretches less safe for us all . On busy stretches of freeways restrict the lanes large trucks can drive in not there speed .

of CO @ Apr 01, 2008 22:59:58 PM

ATA is a front

The ATA is a front for the big trucking companies to get their agenda through. ALL the data on speed differentials (one speed for cars, another for trucks) has proven that it is dangerous. This clown (clayton boyce) is saying that cutting all trucks back to 65 eliminates speed differentials? does he get to just make up his own definitions? Clayton Boyce you are a hypocrite and a career politician; stop pretending that you are trying to do something for the environment, or for safety, because most of us can see through you and that you are only trying to do something for your friends at Schneider, JB Hunt, Swift, and the like. They can't keep drivers because drivers know that a truck cut back to 65 can't get out of its own way, let alone out of the way of the super fast Four Wheelers. Why don't you try to get all the cars in the country cut back you hypocrite! That would certainly save gas and make the roads safer.

More people die running into trucks than trucks running into them. Have you ever driven a truck Mr. Boyce? I have and it wears you out to have hundreds of cars passing you all day. I have driven trucks cut back to 63 and trucks that could roll 80. And I wouldn't drive another truck cut back to 65 for all the tea in china. its flat out dangerous to be going that slow and not have the ability to get out of the way. People tend to speed up when you pass them. So if you've got just enough to get by, and then the person gases on it - you are hosed! They hang you out to dry and everyone starts passing on the right and your lucky to ever get back over. That is unsafe! and so are people like you Mr. Boyce who are so-called experts touting your "news-speak" for the unwashed masses. We let people drive cars that aren't governed at any speed limit. Why? Because this is still America, and people can make decisions for themselves. So can truck drivers. What's the difference? One crazy driving four wheeler can cause a truck to wreck and take out all kinds of innocent people. So stop spreading propaganda that the trucks are to blame when it all goes wrong. "If only that truck was going slower" Yeah, tell that to the person who ends up way under his trailer because they didn't expect him to be going so slow.

"Stonewall" of PA @ Apr 01, 2008 22:54:10 PM