> It isn't trucks who are menace on the road, it is flipping off jerks in cars.
The article states:
- The driver may be "numb".
- He is in emotional distress.
- He has skipped meals
- He has been driving the better half of 14 hours.
THIS is my beef.
There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road, and instead of flipping him off, the state police should have been notified maybe, but to say we should just relax is out of line.
I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver.
Recently watched a BBC documentary on truck drivers in USA. Apparently majority of truck drivers are constipated. They prefer to eat stuff they can hold in one hand while driving with the other - like beef jerky, cheese sticks, instead of salads. The docu said the average US truck driver visits the restroom only once in 3-4 days. To prove this assertion, they had a group of East-West truck drivers swallow a tiny camera that transmitted pictures of their colon until it was ejected. It was quite gross, vivid and very conclusive evidence. They then had half the group switch to a diet of canned veggies - peas-in-a-can, carrots-in-a-can etc. The truck drivers ended up visiting the restroom 2-3 times per day, were much lighter physically, and a lot more relaxed, chatty and fun.
It was on Discovery I think...if you have a link pls post.
The fundamental problem is that we have completely inadequate rail infrastructure in the US. Why is it that everything has to go by truck? Trucks are extremely inefficient compared to trains, and are much more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, create congestion on our freeways, and damage our roads requiring tax dollars to repair.
Too many trucks and fatigued drivers is a symptom of the greater problem, which is inadequate rail infrastructure.
The "fundamental problem" is probably that America is a really big country, and there are lots of livable places in the US that are far from other population centers.
> The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world
We're talking about the greatest country on Earth. Even with the best freight rail infrastructure in the world, it may still not be up to American standards.
I'm not sure how many people living outside of the US would actually consider it to be the 'greatest country on Earth'. I certainly don't want to live there...
Not sure if this is just a troll actually. If so, good job I guess.
While it may be hip on the net to trash our country, if you ask an average person in a developing country where they want to go, they will invariably want to come here. Even in China, who everyone is waiting for with bated breath to overtake America, people want to come here.
Having been to quite a few other first world countries (Europe and Canada) and having relatives there, I would say that the upper middle class life is most definitely not better anywhere else. In America, you can get a nice big house, a nice big car, and have a comfortable life.
For example, I'm in Japan right now, and I miss the central air conditioning (here they have boxed air conditioners in select rooms instead). I miss the ridiculously cheap prices for just about anything I might want to buy. But most of all, while there are certainly advantages to having a convenient public transit system, I have to say that I miss having the wide open road before me and the sweet feeling of metal roaring to go beneath my feet.
Of course, things may be different for the poor, since they certainly have it pretty bad in America, but I am fortunate enough to have never known poverty.
We actually have a pretty good cargo rail network in the US (compare to Europe where passenger rail is better but not cargo). The US is spread out and trucks are it. They do pay quite a bit of fuel tax, and I am not sure it is the trucks themselves that create the problem. I see a lot of non-truck drivers that cause more congestion.
I used to work at a company that worked in Logistics. I don't know if it's gotten better, but at least at that point there really was no good solution for multi-modal loads. If you wanted to go truck->train->truck, you were on your own for arranging all of the details. It was far easier to just use a truck from point to point than the other solutions.
It might have improved in the last 10 years though :)
Yeah, railroads were the most screwed up business in the USA for a long while (I got a story about a "missing" soybean car that is truly unbelievable), but they have actually gotten quite a bit better in the last decade. Some of the railroads now have agreements with different trucks to do complete run. I haven't been near the industry in 3 years, but I know it was getting much nicer than before 2001.
Railroads essentially operate monopolies on transport within a given region, and we're against regulation these days. Plus, those pesky workers know that, so they do inconvenient things like form unions and demand concessions.
So instead, we build a giant taxpayer-funded road system, which in turn results in sprawl, which requires yet more road systems.
Aren't trucks much more flexible than trains? Roads are already here, they're everywhere, and they go everywhere. Rails would have to be built, and even if they were, they would never be as extensive as roads are.
Assuming comparable existing infrastructure, trains might be more efficient, but isn't it much more efficient to use the existing infrastructure, to the point that it mitigates the efficiency of a train?
According to that 2008 source (which appears to be pro-railroad) freight rail is up to four times more fuel-efficient per ton of freight delivered than freight trucking.
What are you going to do about the areas that are more than 50 miles from a train depot? Haul it in several smaller vehicles? Sounds efficient...whats better 60,000 lbs hauled at 8MPG in one truck or 10,000lbs hauled at 15MPG in 6 vehicles.
There is a reason we are still using trucks...good luck without them.
I think you really underestimate how big this country is and how small a 50-mile radius is. That kind of coverage would be absolutely impossible to do.
You're not terribly familar with the existing freight infrastructure in the east coast then.
Look at a map of Pennsylvania, one of the larger and more sparse eastern states. 50 miles from any point will get you to Erie, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Allentown, Scranton, etc. All of which you can ship and receive freight by train from.
And that is a bad example of a state where it could work. Try looking at Jersey instead!
THIS is my beef.There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road
The sky is not falling, it is not as bad as you think.
If there is no excuse to put others in any danger on the road, you should never, ever, take your own car on the road. Every time anyone drives, there is risk involved.
You're over reacting, chill out. You're not weighing risk rationally. A 12hr strait shot is by no means fun but its not something thats going to significantly deteriorate a driver's ability to the level your post would warrant. An experienced trucker is probably a better driver better than you in his sleep.
Actually, you're the one that's being irrational. Driver's ED manuals recommends taking a break of 15 minutes every two hours, precisely because driving skills deteriorate quickly with fatigue. No amount of experience will make up for it.
I never said it was perfect, just that it wasn't as bad as the gp thought. However, the 15 min every 2 hours is a recommendation, and over the top safety. The page really seems geard towards saying awake And no, its not hard for me to believe people make mistakes when tired, I know people who have totaled cars because they fell asleep. However, I assume (and know anecdotaly) that for someone for whom driving long distances is their job, they understand the reality of the situation, know how to recognize when their body can't take it and most importantly know how to plan their sleep schedule for driving.
You can always, always be more safe at driving. Up to and including the point of advocating for the end of motor vehicle use altogether. Everything about driving is dangerous, my point is was just that the situation described wasn't as brick-shittingly more risky as the GP's tone seemed to imply.
None of it is over the top, and none of it recommends to stay awake (only says to take caffeine if needed), you're just not seeing the picture because you want to believe that truck drivers are better drivers than anyone else because they do this for a living. It's a fallacy, of course. They're not immune to fatigue because they get paid to drive. They're reflexes and judgement are impaired as they would for you or me.
It's as dangerous as it sounds, if it was me who didn't get a whole night's sleep, had to drive a long distance on a deadline (no time for breaks), was sedentary, and had to drive through long and boring rural roads, you'd tell me to get the hell off the road before I kill someone.
I understand someone has to drive trucks to get my food to the supermarket, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious risks, and reasons why the current system is a bad idea. I think driverless trucks would be the best solution.
The article states in the very first paragraph: "Let me tell you a little about the truck driver you just flipped off because he was passing another truck, and you had to cancel the cruise control and slow down until he completed the pass and moved back over."
The point is that the truck driver isn't doing anything wrong. He's just trying to get his job done.
Where in the article does it say he put anyone in danger or imply that he was doing anything that might warrant the police being notified?
I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver.
I wish it could be that way, but things look a lot different when you're the driver and missing the load means your family's going to have a hard time eating.
If you're going to be complaining, the drivers aren't the people to complain about.
If the US had a safety net for people who lost their jobs and couldn't afford to pay their rent or grocery or medical bills, and if the US had a more reasonable minimum hourly wage, and if the US had more regulations to protect both truck drivers and other drivers on the road, it wouldn't happen.
Instead, the law says they can drive 14 hours. They are paid peanuts and have to pay for their own gas and repairs. And, as the article explained, if he was late -- due to the fault of his CUSTOMER -- then he'd lose an entire day waiting around. Which he can't afford, because he's paid peanuts, and there's no safety net.
The system is set up to create this exact situation, and if you don't like it, don't blame the individual, blame the system. Blaming the individual gives you that flair of righteous feeling in your chest but it doesn't change a damn thing. If this man decided to drive only 8 hours a day, he'd be out of a job and somebody else would simply take his place and do the 14-hour runs yet again.
The article states:
- The driver may be "numb".
- He is in emotional distress.
- He has skipped meals
- He has been driving the better half of 14 hours.
THIS is my beef.
There is NO EXCUSE for putting others in danger on the road, and instead of flipping him off, the state police should have been notified maybe, but to say we should just relax is out of line.
I'd argue that NOBODY should be driving under these conditions, let alone a truck driver.