| Anyone that has been driving for very long has probably read a
trucking magazine or publication, and hopefully you have seen the
articles stating that independent studies have shown that a split speed
limit for cars and trucks DOES NOT improve safety.
What a
split speed limit DOES is increase the risk of an accident by as much as
60% for a split speed limit of 15 m.p.h.
Think about that a minute. By driving a truck 15 miles per hour
slower than the cars on the same interstate (say 55 mph for trucks vs.
70 mph for cars as an example), you are placing yourself and other
drivers at risk of being involved in an accident by 60% MORE than
driving your truck at the same speed as the cars.
So why do states have split speed limits? The popular belief is that
it is simply for revenue. Although no state will admit this is true, and
most states with a split speed limit will claim it is for public safety,
how can they make this claim when they haven't done any independent
research to justify such a statement, and studies already exist
PROVING it isn't safer, but more dangerous to have trucks moving
slower than cars?
So far the only drivers I've talked to that aren't concerned about a
split speed limit are the ones driving trucks that are governed lower
than most speed limits, with the exception of the states that have a 55
mile per hour speed limit for trucks. They do agree those states should
raise the speed limit for trucks.
Whether you drive a truck that does 65 m.p.h, 75 m.p.h., or a triple
digit large car, the fact remains that states with a split speed limit
cannot prove in any independent studies that a split speed limit is
safer than the same speed limit for cars and trucks.
If these states are in fact simply looking at trucks as a source of
revenue rather than taking safety into consideration, then they are
placing their citizens, and any individual traveling in that state at
risk, including truck drivers. By ignoring the independent studies
proving a split speed limit increases the chance of accidents, then they
are blatantly admitting they are more concerned with revenue than public
safety.
This in itself should not only be
illegal, but it should be a federal crime, and the governing powers of
these states that refuse to change the speed limits for trucks to the
same speed limit of cars should be charged with public endangerment!
Another issue that is creating a more dangerous situation for truck
drivers is the lane restrictions. Although I'm not aware of any
independent studies being done, a little common sense goes a long way on
this issue.
The far right lane is where almost all on ramps and off ramps
originate. This automatically means that the traffic patterns in this
lane is changing more frequently than any other lane. Cars and trucks
entering and exiting the interstate also create a constant change in
traffic volume in this lane. On a three or four lane interstate, the two
right lanes are obviously more susceptible to accidents due to the more
frequent and constant changes in traffic patterns and traffic volume.
Now, we drive the largest vehicles on the road. They take the longest
to get up to speed, they require more space to maneuver, and they take
the longest to stop. By the very nature of the vehicle, they are
admittedly more dangerous in respect to their size, weight and stopping
ability than a car, so what possible logic is there in placing the
largest, hardest to stop and hardest to maneuver vehicles in the lanes
that are subject to the most frequent changes in traffic conditions?
There is no logic in it! The only reason we are restricted to the
right lanes is because the motoring public doesn't want us in their way,
and state politicians are more than happy to place us in harms way in
order to make it seem like they are doing something to benefit their
voters. Just like the split speed limit, all they are doing is creating
a condition that is more likely to increase the risk of an accident, and
creating a situation where they have endangered the lives of their
citizens and truck drivers once again.
Wouldn't it seem more logical to have large trucks that are going
through a city rather than exiting in the city use the far LEFT
lane? They would not interfere with local traffic trying to enter and
exit the interstate, and the traffic that is entering and exiting the
interstate would not have to contend with the trucks when trying to
merge on or off of an interstate or highway.
What could make more sense than that?
A quick note on lane thickness. I've heard the excuse that the left
lanes aren't poured thick enough to handle the weight of a semi truck
and trailer. In fact, a California Highway Patrol officer told me that.
Now, I did spend a couple of years driving a concrete mixer, and I have
poured concrete on a federally funded interstate, and I have news for
the officer. Every interstate and federally funded highway requires
ALL lanes of an interstate to be poured to certain minimum
standards, and those standards
include being able to support the weight of a fully loaded
commercial semi tractor trailer combination. While I've never poured
asphalt, I have no doubt there are standards for asphalt highways as
well requiring them to support the weight of a loaded semi. If it's true
that California didn't meet the federal guidelines when pouring their
interstates, then I guess they have a lot of work to do in order to
bring their interstates up to standard.
Additionally, fuel taxes from diesel fuel is suppose to help fund the
maintenance and repair of the interstate system. Although I have read
that these funds have been diverted by Washington to support 'other'
services, the fact remains that if we are paying taxes that are intended
for the maintenance of the interstates and other highways, states have
no right restricting our use of any portion of the road unless they can
prove the diesel tax was not used for any improvements on any lanes
other than the ones trucks are allowed to use.
Maybe these states feel that just because we are the ones that supply
everything every citizen of the state uses on a daily basis, we aren't
as important as the four wheelers, and it's more important to make sure
people out for a Sunday drive don't have to worry about the big trucks
being in their way, even though we are the ones that use the highways to
do our jobs rather than for recreation.
Although avoiding driving through these states would be preferable,
unfortunately it isn't an option since it seems almost every state has
lane restrictions posted for trucks in one location or another, even if
they don't have a split speed limit.
What is an option is to stop buying fuel
in these states until they change the speed limits to make them the same
for cars and trucks, and remove any and all lane restrictions for trucks
so that when we are traveling through a city, we can do so safely
without being placed in the most dangerous positions on the interstates
and highways.
Fuel boycotts work when everyone joins together!
Between the loss of revenue from diesel fuel taxes, and the complaints
from the truck stops within the states due to their loss of revenue from
diesel fuel sale, it wouldn't take long before every state we targeted
would be willing to raise the speed limit and eliminate any lane
restrictions on the interstates and highways, and this is something
anyone can do, including company drivers that might not be willing to
refuse to haul for particular shippers.
Although a nationwide shut down would definitely include a federal
law prohibiting states from imposing a split speed limit and removing
lane restrictions for trucks, there are options available to us that
wouldn't require such a drastic measure, and the more we agree to work
together on smaller issues that are easy to achieve, the easier it will
be to get the boys in Washington D.C. to listen to us when they see a
large enough driver unification to make us a positive force to not only
be dealt with in a reasonable manner, and it will make it much
easier to get the politicians to not only listen to us in the future,
but take us serious.
|
