Etcetera

Asleep At The Wheel: Just Keep Truckin' On

pO157.

Posted to Etcetera on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:48:02 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

It apparently happens 5,200 times a year in the United States, somebody dies as a direct result of truck driver fatigue.

The average trucker drives over 125,000 miles a year on the low end, as such these professional drivers can be regarded as some of the safest on the road. They are commonly paid by the mile, so while this can add up to higher pay than some average workers, there is an incentive for some drivers to push the limits and drive more miles faster so they can haul more loads.

Since drivers may drive their trucks legally up to 88 hours over an 8 day period, some are blaming these truck crashes on driver fatigue. Of course, all truckers know what they can do to legally (and illegally) reduce fatigue, but groups such as the Advocates for Safe Highways are demanding new rules whereby truckers must work no more than 60 hours a week, have 9 to 12 hours of rest, which if interrupted at any point resets the clock to zero, and take 2 or 3 hour breaks in the middle of their work schedule. They claim that current laws that allow professional drivers to work in 18 hour periods (10 hours of work, 6 rest) instead of a full 24 hour day (9-11 hours work, the rest for breaks, and mandatory electronic monitoring) are unsafe. Truckers counter that they need more flexibility, and the rigid rules prevent them from doing their jobs in the best way possible. There are still no regulations for private drivers in their own personal automobiles.

Recent listing of the states with the highest frequency of truck crash fatalities coupled with regulations soon allowing the contentious issue of possibly unsafe Mexican long-haul truckers into this country on a trial basis will likely give this issue more attention soon.

Tags: written by pO157, edited by 1fastdog, truckers, transportation, interstate highway, fatigue, safety, NAFTA, fatalities (all tags)

This story: 12 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Drive time

Acefantastik.

Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:59:47 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

I've been paid to drive vehicles, and I've driven thousands of miles recreationally, so I my opinions on this topic are probably biased in favor of the wheelman. In the early to mid-2000s, I had two different driving jobs: the first was for a private postal letters firm, and my route was only in and around the city (Portland, Oregon). My job consisted of driving a large van around and picking up mail from either hot receptionists or surly mailroom dudes. My second driving job involved driving a large (but not 18 wheel) truck for a meat company. That's right, your pal Ace used to deliver exotic meats and thick sausages. This job took me all over the West Coast, up to the Canadian border and often down to the Shasta region of California. I hauled it all: boxed meat, pre-cut carcass, and sometimes live animals. I often worked brutal 18+ hour shifts which took me hundreds of miles from my house and back in one or two day's work. And although I was taxed by the physical labor and draining highway mileage, I never felt as if I was a danger to myself or anyone else on the road. I know how to drink coffee, and I know how to take a powernap at a rest stop. I kind of come down on the side of uncarved block's Queue comment, which indicates that people seem comfortable with a doctor or surgeon who works long shifts and may have to save a life, but less comfortable with a laborer who works long shifts, but his truck delivery keeps plenty of people supplied with the things they need daily. Immediate lifesaving is obviously more sexy and noble than boring sustainability, but the trucking industry in this country is what keeps whitey alive. So I guess I am pro-trucker, since most of these guys know what the hell they are doing, and since "civilians" on the road are just as likely to cause a stupid accident as a trucker. The real solution is to invest in a series of commercial-only highways, which would solve congestion, accidents, and police needs all in one swoop. Now who wants to pay for it? In my private motorist career, I've taken quite a few 2000+ mile trips as the primary or only driver. I've never been close to doing anything stupid, but that's likely due to the fact that I was trained well and I'm a decent driver. My last huge car trip was pretty legendary: I left my parent's house in eastern Connecticut on a Monday afternoon, and I rolled into Portland sometime mid-day Thursday. That's over 3,000 miles in less than 72 hours. All alone, with nothing but coffee, tobacco, and AM radio. Telling good drivers they should sleep is like telling good golfers they should keep their eye on the ball: duh. Telling any adult professional how to do their job due to feelgood safety concerns is silly, and only serves to push paperwork and feed the nanny society monster. I'm all for safe highways and reasonable limits, but let's not go too far.

2

^ 1

To Be Clear

uncarved block.

Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:54:26 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

   I don't know that folks were entirely comfortable with doctors pulling day long shifts-- they just didn't feel as if they were in a position to tell a medical professional how to do their job, or how long. Truckers, I was thinking, could use a line of argument similar to the one you make, though, in that they are accredited pros as well, and should warrant the same respect. OTOH, the days of doctors pulling three day shifts (not common, but I heard it happened) also ended because of the attention, so truckers may have to compromise a tad. The regulations, from what I gather, are already fairly restrictive, especially compared to what they were- or rather, weren't- even two decades ago. I may be a liberal, but at some point regulations give diminishing returns, and a certain level of trouble is always to be expected. As a cyclist, I would certainly rather see increased demands on average motorists, but that may just be personal bitterness coming to the fore :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

3

^ 1

I think I saw this in the Big Lebowski...

pO157.

Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:18:22 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

That is too cliched.

Did you ever tell the hot receptionists that you "were there to pick up a package?" or ask said folks where they wanted all that hot exotic sausage?

I wouldn't be able to do that job without busting out laughing at least once a day.

4

^ 1

On the topic this time

pO157.

Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:22:24 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

If we followed yours and the blocks suggestions this would lead to much less government regulation in all fields, which could be good overall, but I would imagine some dicey things would happen as a result as well.

My modest proposal: If everybody is so concerned about the number (I am, to the extent they consume fuel) and safety (I am not, as I think professional drivers are some of the best on the road) of trucks on the road how about reinvesting in cargo transport via rail for some of the less time criticial freight? I know there are many midwest and west towns dying on the vine that used to be major hubs of shipping and it would do a great deal to unclogging the highways, reducing the dependence on foreign oil, lowering shipping costs and make all of our wildest dreams come true!

7

^ 4

Umn, No

uncarved block.

Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 01:06:44 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

   I don't believe government regulation is bad-- in fact, I think it has a good deal to do with the high quality of life Americans currently enjoy. In this particular instance, I happen to believe that the regulations have already hit the best balance between imposition on the industry and results. Knowing when to stop has been a problem in Western intellectual history from almost the start, and so I'm not surprised these proposals are being made: I just happen to believe they aren't needed.
   Do you live in the midwest? I know in Washington and Oregon the rail system never really decayed all that much, and it's still common to see a lot of rail traffic, along the Columbia river especially. But a lot of rail lines were torn up, or allowed to deteriorate past a level which would be cost effective to repair them. I'm under the impression that rail is probably in use now more than it was, say, twenty years ago, but can't say why I believe this.
   On a totally unrelated note: if you have any old books on railways or trains around the house, they might be worth a good chunk of money. Books on trains and tractors are hot items, especially if they're on a small local press. Fifty bucks, maybe even a hundred, are prices I see on-line frequently. Just a tip from the local book stocker :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

8

^ 7

Re: Umn, No

pO157.

Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:25:29 PM EST

none

   Do you live in the midwest? I know in Washington and Oregon the rail system never really decayed all that much, and it's still common to see a lot of rail traffic, along the Columbia river especially. But a lot of rail lines were torn up, or allowed to deteriorate past a level which would be cost effective to repair them. I'm under the impression that rail is probably in use now more than it was, say, twenty years ago, but can't say why I believe this.

Used to live in the intermountain west. The "city" I lived in had a large railway switching station for cargo (Union Pacific? I'm not exactly sure). However, I assumed the level of freight they carried was dropping due to the fact that the newspapers were occasionally full of stories about layoffs, shift reductions, drop-offs in routes they serviced, etc. That's not to say they couldn't theoretically be carrying more freight on longer trains as I still got woken up at 4am by the whistles (not that I am complaining, it was a cool place to live) but it seemed likely that it was in decline, at least according to an observer from outside the industry.

10

^ 8

A Link

uncarved block.

Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:11:37 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

   OK, a couple minutes of Googling found some support for my notion that railway commercial use was on the rise. The article seems to have been produced for lobbying purposes of some kind, but the raw numbers about volume  seem unlikely to be fake or distorted.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

5

^ 4

Re: On the topic this time

tomc.

Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:51:28 PM EST

4.50 (astute, astute)

how about reinvesting in cargo transport via rail for some of the less time criticial freight?

I'm all for more trains!

I don't understand why this country is so "anti-train".  Are companies unable to keep up the infrastructure?  So much public money goes into roads and airports, why not rail?

Even with passenger traffic, bicycles sometimes seem faster than rail.

6

^ 5

Re: On the topic this time

jwb.

Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:58:18 PM EST

5.00 (informative, interesting)

There's a tremendous amount of public money that gets poured into rail as well.  It just happens that the private railroad companies get to keep all the infrastructure, all the profits, and the public gets squat.  I wish I knew how this came to pass, but that's the way it works right now.  Consider that Amtrak and the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board have used California state funds and bonds to quad-track the railroad from Oakland to Sacramento.  Who owns those four tracks?  Union Pacific.  Odd?  Yes.

9

^ 5

Re: On the topic this time

thefadd.

Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 05:07:59 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

The car companies bought up all the public transit in pre-WWII Los Angeles and just plain shut it down. I think that's about all you need to know to understand what happened in America. What did you think Who Framed Roger Rabbit was about?

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

11

^ 9

Re: On the topic this time

pO157.

Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 07:54:18 PM EST

none

Your point is well taken. However, it seems like now with the current worry about energy being at the forefront of the US domestic agenda it would be high time for some Conrail/Amtrack lobbyists to start asking for increased transcontinental railways funding. I wouldn't think the US car lobby would be very palatable at this time, especially with all of their financial troubles.

On a related note, I once met a guy who claimed to be a former chef on an Amtrak passenger train. Apparently he used to work all the touristy transcon routes and cook for all of the high rollers in some type of mobile 4 star restaurant setup. He said it was really classy, and at night you could get loaded and when the train passes through the Dakotas or Montana/Wyoming they'd have a glass roofed car set up and you could pass-out and look up at the heavens while butlers attended to your every need.

He claimed that the reason why vacationing domestically and traveling via train died off was due to the cheap fares overseas. Why visit the rockies on a train when you can go to Aruba or Africa for only a few hundred more? I would imagine this trend should reverse itself if air fares climb higher.

Of course, when I met him he was a snaggletoothed tow truck driver with a beard that would put ZZ Top to shame and he mispelled the word "Toast" on the damage waiver form when he hauled my wrecked vehicle back across state lines so I am not sure how reliable his stories were. Of course, your mileage may vary.

This story: 12 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment