 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008Merge-impaired truck driver
I had an incident with a truck driver tonight. I was in the right lane behind another car, going about 110. There was a big gap behind me, and a tractor-trailer slowly entering an acceleration lane. I expected that the truck driver would wait the few seconds for me to pass and then accelerate to move into the gap. It's a good thing that I was paying attention just then because the truck driver flicked on its turn signal and drifted in front of me, blocking both the acceleration lane and the roadway with the trailer. I had passing traffic on my left and nowhere to go except off the road. I stopped to avoid hitting the trailer, downshifted to first, swerved around the trailer, and cut in front of the cab to get out of the way of the approaching traffic. The truck driver then appeared to flash its headlamps at me. Could that mean, "Sorry for being so stupid as to force you to stop, when I could have merged into that big gap behind you!" or "You're an idiot for cutting me off - you're supposed to swerve into the cars on your left or stop to accommodate me and my MFFY attitude!"? > I had an incident with a truck driver tonight. I was in the right lane > behind another car, going about 110. There was a big gap behind me, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > cutting me off - you're supposed to swerve into the cars on your left or > stop to accommodate me and my MFFY attitude!"? Most likely the Driver (that's what we call ourselves, not "Truck Drivers") simply didn't see you until he was already in front of you. I know what flashing headlamps mean, from one Driver to another it means "OK to change lanes now" or "thanks for letting me know it was OK to change lanes now". This comes from the fact that the vehicles we drive are extraordinarily long and our mirrors aren't much better than 'car' mirrors, so it's not always easy for a Driver to tell when the semi-trailer he's pulling has cleared the vehicle he was passing. So we flash -each other- to say "it's ok to cut over in front of me now". I don't know of a headlamp signal that a Driver would give to a 'four-wheeler' (car driver). My guess is that the Driver was signalling another Driver and you just happened to be in front of him at the time. That is, the signal wasn't meant for you. Even when car drivers give me the headlamp flash when I'm passing them, I assume that the signal was NOT meant for me. After all, how do I know why the four-wheeler was flashing his headlamps? Maybe he's a fellow Driver in his private car. Maybe he's just clueless and was trying to turn on his wipers? In either case, I can't assume that just because a car driver flashed me that my trailer has cleared that car and I can move over now. :) Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem when you are driving an 18-wheeler. If you get cut off while driving a Camry, it's a minor annoyance. If you get cut off while driving an International Prostar pulling 40,000 pounds of potatoes, it is a heart-stopping OH sh.t moment. :) -Dave >Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem >when you are driving an 18-wheeler. If you get cut off while driving a Camry, >it's a minor annoyance. If you get cut off while driving an International Prostar >pulling 40,000 pounds of potatoes, it is a heart-stopping OH sh.t moment. :) That's right, and when a Trucker delays a 4-wheeler with a poor merge or a micro-pass of another Trucker at a 0.001 MPH speed differential, the 4-wheeler is "on vacation" and has all the time in the world, whereas if a Trucker has to wait for a 4-wheeler, that Trucker is "losing money" because he'll be late for his next delivery. Right?  SignatureJoin Operation Starve the Troll: Don't respond to his posts or click on his web site. Deny him the attention he so desperately craves and he'll go away! > >Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem > >when you are driving an 18-wheeler. If you get cut off while driving a Camry, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Right? I hope you were being sarcastic. However, if you ever drove a combination vehicle heavily loaded (a "18 wheeler" in other words), you might have a totally different perspective on this. I don't feel too bad for a four-wheeler who gets slowed down by a "truck" momentarily. Let's face it, your Corolla (for example, not saying you drive a Corolla) can speed up to 80MPH pretty quickly when the traffic clears. But if a Corolla cuts me off while I'm driving a "truck", it might take me several miles to reach highway speed again. If you don't feel sorry for me I don't blame you. But you should keep in mind that there might be many fellow four-wheelers caught behind me, also. Yes, they can pass me but forcing them to isn't exactly safe. It's better for ALL highway users if I can keep the truck MOVING. Oh, and while I don't agree that micro-passing is a good idea, I do understand it. The typical car driver is only going about 20 miles or so, at most. The typical truck driver is going several hundreds of miles today alone. Getting stuck behind a slower truck can add hours to your driving time and it's not safe to tailgate any vehicle. So you must pass slower trucks. The problem is not the truck drivers, it is the truck drivers' employers who insist on "regulating" the tractors to an exact speed like 64.6MPH or something stupid like that. So when you have to pass, your only choice is to micro-pass. It would be safer and MUCH more courteous to speed up to ~75 to complete a pass safely. But you simply don't have that option. The equipment won't let you. -Dave Please learn to use carriage returns every 70 characters or so. >I hope you were being sarcastic. However, if you ever drove a >combination vehicle heavily loaded (a "18 wheeler" in other words), >you might have a totally different perspective on this. I don't feel >too bad for a four-wheeler who gets slowed down by a "truck" > momentarily. Classic me first, f.ck you thinking. > Let's face it, your Corolla (for example, not saying you > drive a Corolla) can speed up to 80MPH pretty quickly when the traffic > clears. But if a Corolla cuts me off while I'm driving a "truck", it > might take me several miles to reach highway speed again. That's *YOUR* problem. Imagine if you're driving your passenger car or even your rig and I use the same logic with my bicycle. Guess what? You're going to be really pissed off I forced you to brake and wait behind me at 25mph because it takes more effort for me to regain speed if I had to brake. > Classic me first, f.ck you thinking. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's *YOUR* problem. Oh but it shouldn't be. And you accuse ME of MFFY thinking? Sheesh. -Dave >> Classic me first, f.ck you thinking. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> That's *YOUR* problem. >Oh but it shouldn't be. And you accuse ME of MFFY thinking? Sheesh. -Dave Your vehicle's capabilities are *YOUR* problem. I see you decided not to respond to my bicycling example and trimmed it. Would you like to have a bicyclist cut you off and force you to wait for him to pass slower traffic using the logic that it is more difficult for him to regain speed if he had to slow/stop? The first rule is not to do something to someone else that you would consider wrong/rude if it were done to you. My guess is that you, like practically everyone else on the planet would see that as a rude move on the part of the bicyclist. You would be none too pleased about it. >> Classic me first, f.ck you thinking. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Oh but it shouldn't be. And you accuse ME of MFFY thinking? Sheesh. I see you completely avoided Brent's point about accommodating his bicycle. That undoubtedly means you cannot counter it. Bottom line, nobody else should have to take evasive action to accommodate you. It was your choice to drive such a low-performance vehicle, so the only person who should have to suffer the consequences of that choice is you. To think otherwise is pure MFFY. SignatureJoin Operation Starve the Troll: Message-ID: <elc904lr4ggc1f5765ctdvk55piigeldiv@4ax.com> > >Oh but it shouldn't be. And you accuse ME of MFFY thinking? Sheesh. > > I see you completely avoided Brent's point about accommodating his > bicycle. That undoubtedly means you cannot counter it. No, I was kind and ignored it, as it was a ridiculous comparison. Even at worst, one motor vehicle is only going to slow down another motor vehicle a few MPH for a few minutes. Throw a bicycle in the mix and you might as well park the car and walk. Thus it is a ridiculous comparison that I kindly chose to ignore. I was in a generous mood until a couple of people called me on it. :) -Dave >> I see you completely avoided Brent's point about accommodating his >> bicycle. That undoubtedly means you cannot counter it. > No, I was kind and ignored it, as it was a ridiculous comparison. No, it was quite apt. > Even at worst, one motor vehicle is only going to slow down another > motor vehicle a few MPH for a few minutes. I've had trucks slow me down from 80 mph to 55 mph for 3 minutes (sometimes they've slowed me down to 40 mph). I've had bicycles slow me down from 40 mph to 20 mph for about 10 seconds. Trucks cost me quite a bit more time. >>> I see you completely avoided Brent's point about accommodating his >>> bicycle. That undoubtedly means you cannot counter it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > down from 40 mph to 20 mph for about 10 seconds. Trucks cost me quite a > bit more time. Yes, whole lots of "this." Even if you consider yourself constrained to legal speeds, the difference between 65 or 70 MPH and whatever the truck in front of you is doing (anywhere down to 30 MPH on some of the steeper grades on I-68 or I-70) is on the same order of magnitude as that of the reduction in speed due to a cyclist on a city street, and may be greater. Maybe the truckers just don't realize their impact on other traffic? Hard to believe if you think about it, but it's clear that at least many four-wheelers don't think either. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> I see you completely avoided Brent's point about accommodating his >> bicycle. That undoubtedly means you cannot counter it. > >No, I was kind and ignored it, as it was a ridiculous comparison. Not at all. A vehicle is a vehicle, and if we are all supposed to make special accommodations for low-performance vehicles, then bicycles deserve it every bit as much as trucks. But you would never agree to that, would you? Special treatment is OK, as long as it's ONLY for Truckers. SignatureJoin Operation Starve the Troll: Message-ID: <elc904lr4ggc1f5765ctdvk55piigeldiv@4ax.com> >> >Oh but it shouldn't be. And you accuse ME of MFFY thinking? Sheesh. >> >> I see you completely avoided Brent's point about accommodating his >> bicycle. That undoubtedly means you cannot counter it. > >No, I was kind and ignored it, as it was a ridiculous comparison. What is ridiculous is your refusal to use carriage returns. It's the same thing. The bicycle is a vehicle that requires effort to regain speed. This is why some bicycle riders blow stop signs and red lights. > Even at worst, one motor vehicle is only going to slow down another > motor vehicle a few MPH for a few minutes. Throw a bicycle in the mix > and you might as well park the car and walk. A bicyclist doing 25 where you're doing 35 isn't any worse than your truck forcing someone who's doing 75 to do 65. In fact, bicycles being so narrow are much easier to get around and instead of minutes it will be seconds. > Thus it is a ridiculous comparison that I kindly chose to ignore. No, you ignored it because you know most drives would be pissed if they were forced to wait a few seconds by a rude bicyclist doing the same thing you do with your truck expecting other people to wait a few minutes. > I don't feel too bad for a four-wheeler who gets slowed down by a "truck" momentarily. I wasn't only slowed down by this MFFYing idiot. I had to stop in the lane, and I almost slammed into the side of the trailer. If I'd been distracted at that point, I would've gone under the trailer. The roadway was almost closed because of a failure to yield, an improper use of the acceleration lane, and a misunderstanding that flicking on the turn signal means that everyone else has to immediately swerve out of the way. The truck driver then continued to hold up the rest of the traffic that got stuck behind it, and that caused a traffic jam as the right lane turned into a parking lot. > The problem is not the truck drivers, it is the truck drivers' employers who insist on "regulating" the tractors to an exact speed like 64.6MPH or something stupid like that. The speed-limiter should be based on the actual limits of the trailer, engine, and load. It should not be related to an arbitrary value. > > The problem is not the truck drivers, it is the truck drivers' employers who insist on "regulating" the tractors to an exact speed like 64.6MPH or something stupid like that. > > The speed-limiter should be based on the actual limits of the trailer, > engine, and load. It should not be related to an arbitrary value. I agree. In actual practice, this means that tractors should not be limited at all. Their own inabilities are limiting enough. :) -Dave > > I don't feel too bad for a four-wheeler who gets slowed down by a "truck" momentarily. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The speed-limiter should be based on the actual limits of the trailer, > engine, and load. It should not be related to an arbitrary value. I agree, but it ain't going to happen, at least until speed limits are set properly. My own employer puts GPS devices in service trucks; if a driver consistently exceeds the speed limit by more than a nominal amount I assume disciplinary action will be taken. (I haven't heard of this, but I *have* heard several people state that the records from the GPS logs *are* monitored.) The reasoning, I'm certain, is that if an incident were to occur, evidence that the driver was speeding would be used against the company, regardless of actual fault, and since they a) self insure and b) have deep pockets that could only end badly. I'm sure that the people setting this policy are intelligent and know full well that it does nothing to improve safety; they're simply trying to minimize their exposure and liability. nate >> >Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem >> >when you are driving an 18-wheeler. If you get cut off while driving a Camry, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I hope you were being sarcastic. However, if you ever drove a combination vehicle heavily loaded (a "18 wheeler" in other words), you might have a totally different perspective on this. I don't feel too bad for a four-wheeler who gets slowed down by a "truck" momentarily. Yeah? No kidding? Well, when it happens to you over, and over, and over you tend to have a different perspective of trucks. Oh, and I won't be feeling too bad for truckers that are all going to get run out of business when diesel hits $6 - $7 a gallon, and all the over-the-roads stuff starts getting done by railroads. They move a ton of freight 423 miles on a gallon of fuel. It'll be worth paying the price increase just to see this happen. Since 1 fully loaded truck does as much damage to the road as 10,000 cars (if I remember right) we might just make it back up in decreased highway maintenance, too. >Let's face it, your Corolla (for example, not saying you drive a Corolla) can speed up to 80MPH pretty quickly when the traffic clears. But if a Corolla cuts me off while I'm driving a "truck", it might take me several miles to reach highway speed again. If you don't feel sorry for me I don't blame you. But you should keep in mind that there might be many fellow four-wheelers caught behind me, also. Yes, they can pass me but forcing them to isn't exactly safe. It's better for ALL highway users if I can keep the truck MOVING. > >Oh, and while I don't agree that micro-passing is a good idea, I do understand it. The typical car driver is only going about 20 miles or so, at most. Nice rationalization... and WRONG, too. If I'm on an interstate highway where this can happen to me, it means that my destination is almost certainly 300 miles or more. Next trip I have where this could happen is to Pittsburgh, about 300 miles. If I drive to the next event, it'll be 1,100 miles. Event last month was 6,000 miles round trip from Virginia to Tucson and back. > The typical truck driver is going several hundreds of miles today alone. Getting stuck behind a slower truck can add hours to your driving time and it's not safe to tailgate any vehicle. So you must pass slower trucks. The problem is not the truck drivers, it is the truck drivers' employers who insist on "regulating" the tractors to an exact speed like 64.6MPH or something stupid like that. So when you have to pass, Another fallacy. You don't HAVE to pass. If you're going 64.6 tops, and the truck you're passing is doing 63 so that it is a micropass, then at the end of 8 hours, you've gone 516.8 miles and would have gone 504 miles if you had just followed the guy. Again, that's after _8 flipping hours._ IOW, just follow the guy - you don't have to pass for 12 miles / 11 minutes difference for a whole day's driving. But no, you don't mind screwing up multiple people's trips who could otherwise be doing maybe 75 mph while you save 11 minutes during the whole flipping day. > your only choice is to micro-pass. No, you can simply follow. >It would be safer and MUCH more courteous to speed up to ~75 to complete a pass safely. But you simply don't have that option. The equipment won't let you. -Dave >Oh, and I won't be feeling too bad for truckers that are all going to get run >out of business when diesel hits $6 - $7 a gallon, and all the over-the-roads [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >cars (if I remember right) we might just make it back up in decreased highway >maintenance, too. It will never be made back in lower taxes because the elected office holders steal every penny they can of road money for some other purpose. Then they cry they have to raise taxes to fix the roads. As to trucking, well it's going to be hurt bad by fuel costs PLUS mexican truck drivers will under cut the current drivers on labor costs PLUS the SPP/NAFTA/and other agreements that lead towards an NAU will allow the trucking companies to base in Mexico and start to avoid all those safety checks, cheaper yet. The teamsters will be history. In general I dislike this globalist managed trade crap, because it is designed to put the US at a disadvantage. Even for the trucking industry its very unfair. But, given my interaction with modern truck drivers, well, it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. Will the replacements be worse? Maybe. They might be too meek and slave like to try and pull that MFFY BS on the road though. Sadly the trucks will be even bigger unsafe hunks of crap than they are now. > In general I dislike this globalist managed trade crap, because it is > designed to put the US at a disadvantage. Even for the trucking industry [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > try and pull that MFFY BS on the road though. Sadly the trucks will be > even bigger unsafe hunks of crap than they are now. If drivers in Mexico are anything like they are in Pakistan/India, I'd be very afraid. MFFY stuff in the US is relatively tame compared to what happens on the roads there. > Oh, and I won't be feeling too bad for truckers that are all going to get > run > out of business when diesel hits $6 - $7 a gallon You should. Someone will haul that freight. It just won't be owner-operators. Anybody unemployed is a drain on the economy and your paycheck in particular. >, and all the over-the-roads > stuff starts getting done by railroads. You see railroad tracks running behind your local supermarkets and wal-marts? Some small towns are like that, but not many. > They move a ton of freight 423 miles > on a gallon of fuel. Yeah, that's great if the tracks happen to run where you need the freight delivered. That applies to about .000001% of freight moved right now. > It'll be worth paying the price increase just to see this > happen. If only money alone could make it so. You know where -all- the roads are running now? You would literally need train tracks THERE. There aint enough money in the universe to solve that logistical nightmare. >Since 1 fully loaded truck does as much damage to the road as 10,000 > cars (if I remember right) we might just make it back up in decreased > highway > maintenance, too. Not really. Unless you are going to run train tracks literally everywhere, that freight will still be moved over the roads. > Another fallacy. You don't HAVE to pass. If you're going 64.6 tops, and > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > just > followed the guy. Not quite. You'd have to drive a truck sometime to truly understand. If my drivetrain is limited to 64.6 MPH, I will average about 58MPH tops actual moving speed. If I'm stuck behind a vehicle limited to 63 though, MY average speed might drop to 45MPH or lower. It depends on how I'm loaded and how the other vehicle is loaded, as well as several other factors. For one: If I'm light, or if I'm more aggressive with the throttle, or if I have a little more power, whatever... I can maintain speed up hill. If the truck ahead is heavy or for some other reason can't/won't hold speed up hill, I'll be average 25MPH where I could average about 58MPH. I've passed trucks in similar situations only to have them catch up to me at my truck stop, HOURS after I'm already shut down. I know from talking to some of these drivers that they didn't take any extra breaks than I did. There's more to traffic than the speed of any two specific vehicles at any specific time. A delay of 60 seconds right now could cause an EXTRA delay of hours further down the road. Like there is a traffic accident right in front of you that closes the road. If you had passed the slower vehicle earlier like safety demanded you to do, you wouldn't be sitting in that mess. >Again, that's after _8 flipping hours._ IOW, just follow > the guy - you don't have to pass for 12 miles / 11 minutes difference for > a > whole day's driving. But it's a lot more difference than 11 minutes, enough of a difference to make you run afoul of federal regulations. Dispatchers like to push us pretty hard. When your 14 hour clock is looming, you don't have time to get stuck behind a truck that is slightly slower than you to begin with but SIGNIFICANTLY slower when it hits the next uphill -or- downhill. If you get delayed a half hour, -you- aren't facing huge fines, in other words. I am. > But no, you don't mind screwing up multiple people's > trips who could otherwise be doing maybe 75 mph while you save 11 minutes > during the whole flipping day. I'm not stopping anybody from doing 75MPH or even averaging 75MPH. I don't do much micro-passing myself, personally. I only said I could understand why it happens. When I am in that situation, I generally wait a couple minutes for traffic to clear enough so that any car getting stuck behind me is only stuck behind me for a very short distance. That's a good compromise as it doesn't delay me much and doesn't delay anybody else much, either. But I'm not every truck driver. > No, you can simply follow. Well I could if I wasn't working for someone else who expected me to keep to schedule. "Truck" drivers lives are very much micro-managed, not just while they are driving. We are on duty 24/7, literally. If I lose a half hour today, I start tomorrow a half hour behind. I can't start driving earlier to make up time lost yesterday, because my break is mandated at 10 hours minimum. It is a snowball effect. It literally is scheduled that tight. If it normally takes 49.5 hours to drive with no delays, we are given exactly 49.5 hours to drive. It shouldn't be that way, but what are you gonna do? Your choices are deal with it or quit. But if enough of us quit, the economy grinds to a screeching halt, literally. -Dave >> No, you can simply follow. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > quit. But if enough of us quit, the economy grinds to a screeching > halt, literally. -Dave You still can follow. Or do you enjoy breaking the law? You're telling me that you are scheduled so tight that you MUST micropass, which is illegal in many states, not to mention incredibly rude and assaholic? Sheesh. From your first couple posts I thought you might actually be an example of a reasonable truck driver. If my boss told me to do something that assaholic, I'd quit. No, I'd tell him what an a.shole he was, *then* quit. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > You still can follow. Or do you enjoy breaking the law? OK which law would that be exactly? Slower traffic keep right? Doesn't apply. The slower traffic is to the right. And when we complete our pass, we will THEN be the slower traffic moving to the right, as the law requires. Keep right except to pass? Well we are passing. As fast as we can. If you think we like to pass slowly, you would be wrong on that. I'd rather floor it and get it over with. So would every other Driver. If only the equipment would let us. I take all driving laws very seriously, and I try not to break them. My paycheck literally depends on it. There are other careers I'm qualified for so I do have a fallback position if necessary. But right now driving keeps a roof over my head. It is in MY best interest to know and follow all driving laws. So I do. > You're telling me that you are scheduled so tight that you MUST > micropass, which is illegal in many states, not to mention incredibly rude > and assaholic? For the first part of that question, I'd love to forward this entire thread to my dispatchers. :) For the second part, I'm not breaking any laws. We can disagree on whether I'm being rude and assaholic. Even if that was true (and I don't believe it is) I am much more courteous to 'car' drivers than they even try to be to me. > Sheesh. From your first couple posts I thought you might actually be an > example of a reasonable truck driver. If my boss told me to do something > that assaholic, I'd quit. No, I'd tell him what an a.shole he was, *then* > quit. > > nate Hey, trucking isn't for everybody. There are lots of drivers leaving all the time for reasons less significant than that even. It is a TOUGH lifestyle. You can't even call it a job or a career, it is a life. And a tough one. -Dave >> You still can follow. Or do you enjoy breaking the law? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > driving keeps a roof over my head. It is in MY best interest to know > and follow all driving laws. So I do. Most states have some laws regarding "impeding traffic" and I think that I even found one addressing the specific instance of trucks micropassing on grades. I think it was in one of the interminable gpstroll threads that I posted that link, but I can't seem to lay my hands on it now. >> You're telling me that you are scheduled so tight that you MUST >> micropass, which is illegal in many states, not to mention incredibly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thread to my dispatchers. :) > For the second part, I'm not breaking any laws. Not necessarily so. > We can disagree on > whether I'm being rude and assaholic. Not really. Micropassing *is* rude and assaholic. Period, end of story. > Even if that was true (and I > don't believe it is) You're entitled to your opinion, completely wrong as it is. > I am much more courteous to 'car' drivers than they > even try to be to me. Well, now, that may well be. Simply driving to/from work is often enough to fill me with hatred for my fellow man and a deep feeling of despair for the future of the human race. >> Sheesh. From your first couple posts I thought you might actually be >> an example of a reasonable truck driver. If my boss told me to do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lifestyle. You can't even call it a job or a career, it is a life. And > a tough one. -Dave no need to make it tough on the rest of us, though. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>> You still can follow. Or do you enjoy breaking the law? >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > nate Found it: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-843 > � 46.2-843. Limitations on overtaking and passing. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > (Code 1950, � 46-228; 1958, c. 541, � 46.1-212; 1989, c. 727.) Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the > > center line of a highway in overtaking and passing another vehicle > > proceeding in the same direction unless such left side is clearly > > visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance > > ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be made safely. OK, I know I've never violated that provision. > > No person operating a truck or combination of vehicles shall pass or > > attempt to pass any truck or combination of vehicles going in the > > same direction on an upgrade if such passing will impede the passage > > of following traffic. That makes perfect sense, and it's something that I do not do. I don't pass uphill. I pass on flat stretches, or sometimes downgrades. Trying to pass uphill is kind of stupid, as it will take forever. If you are talking about combination vehicles, anyway. -Dave >> Oh, and I won't be feeling too bad for truckers that are all going to get >> run [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >owner-operators. Anybody unemployed is a drain on the economy and your >paycheck in particular. Like I said, trains. >>, and all the over-the-roads >> stuff starts getting done by railroads. > >You see railroad tracks running behind your local supermarkets and >wal-marts? Some small towns are like that, but not many. That is not "over the road", that is local delivery. The interstates will be pleasantly devoid of trucks. >> They move a ton of freight 423 miles >> on a gallon of fuel. > >Yeah, that's great if the tracks happen to run where you need the freight >delivered. That applies to about .000001% of freight moved right now. We can build more tracks. >> It'll be worth paying the price increase just to see this >> happen. > >If only money alone could make it so. You know where -all- the roads are >running now? You would literally need train tracks THERE. There aint >enough money in the universe to solve that logistical nightmare. You just need tracks capable of getting the goods within 30 miles or so of where they're going. That is fairly simple. Then you can truck it a _short_ distance and not be gumming up the interstates with micro-passing truckers that also change lanes without looking. I've been run OFF the road twice like that (fortunately I am skilled enough to drive with 2 whees in grass at 70 mph) and also seen another car squished against a Jersey barrier in Kentucky when yet another trucker couldn't be bothered to look before changing lanes. >>Since 1 fully loaded truck does as much damage to the road as 10,000 >> cars (if I remember right) we might just make it back up in decreased [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Not really. Unless you are going to run train tracks literally everywhere, >that freight will still be moved over the roads. But not 1000's of miles on interstates, nor will the remaining local delivery trucks likely weigh 80,000 lbs. >> Another fallacy. You don't HAVE to pass. If you're going 64.6 tops, and >> the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >you that closes the road. If you had passed the slower vehicle earlier like >safety demanded you to do, you wouldn't be sitting in that mess. Pure bullshit rationalization. >>Again, that's after _8 flipping hours._ IOW, just follow >> the guy - you don't have to pass for 12 miles / 11 minutes difference for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >SIGNIFICANTLY slower when it hits the next uphill -or- downhill. If you get >delayed a half hour, -you- aren't facing huge fines, in other words. I am. Yeah, yeah, yeah... me first, f.ck you. Heard it all before. Like I said, driving without trucks on the interstates will be worth the $7 / gallon fuel price when all the freight is traveling the long distances on rails. >> But no, you don't mind screwing up multiple people's >> trips who could otherwise be doing maybe 75 mph while you save 11 minutes [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >gonna do? Your choices are deal with it or quit. But if enough of us quit, >the economy grinds to a screeching halt, literally. -Dave >> >Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem >> >when you are driving an 18-wheeler. If you get cut off while driving a Camry, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I hope you were being sarcastic. *I* was, but I have heard Truckers express those very sentiments quite sincerely. The basic attitude is "the entire economy would grind to a halt without Truckers, you need us, so we should get full priority over all other traffic on the road." SignatureJoin Operation Starve the Troll: Message-ID: <elc904lr4ggc1f5765ctdvk55piigeldiv@4ax.com> > *I* was, but I have heard Truckers express those very sentiments quite > sincerely. The basic attitude is "the entire economy would grind to a > halt without Truckers, you need us, so we should get full priority > over all other traffic on the road." That might be your perception but it is slightly skewed. FWIW, the economy WOULD grind to a halt without truckers. In fact, I predict that if all trucks operating in the U.S. were somehow disabled for 24 hours straight, the economy might take 18 months to recover fully, even if all the trucks started running again right at the 24 hour mark. There is literally nothing that any of us touches on a daily basis that was not delivered by a truck. Even other trucks. :) An interruption of truck traffic as little as 24 hours would cause tremendous headaches that would not be easy to cure. Truckers don't generally feel they should get full priority over all other traffic on the road. What we do feel is that we try our best not to inconvenience four-wheelers too much in spite of the fact that most of them do not return the favor. Yes, that gets old after a while and sometimes we have bad days and do stupid sh.t, because we are human. But I guarantee you if you see a truck driver deliberately doing something to piss you off, that truck driver is far outside the norm of truck drivers in general, and even THAT "Driver" is probably just having a bad day, and dealing with it adly. -Dave >> *I* was, but I have heard Truckers express those very sentiments quite >> sincerely. The basic attitude is "the entire economy would grind to a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > truck drivers in general, and even THAT "Driver" is probably just having > a bad day, and dealing with it adly. -Dave Wrong. Either that or half the truckers on the road are having bad days simultaneously. Hell, I regularly see truckers following cars at speeds/distances that I wouldn't feel comfortable with in the Porsche. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> FWIW, the >> economy WOULD grind to a halt without truckers. In fact, I predict that >> if all trucks operating in the U.S. were somehow disabled for 24 hours >> straight, the economy might take 18 months to recover fully, even if all >> the trucks started running again right at the 24 hour mark. An excellent reason to ship more goods by rail. >> But I guarantee you if you see a truck driver deliberately doing >> something to piss you off, that truck driver is far outside the norm of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Wrong. Either that or half the truckers on the road are having bad days >simultaneously. The problem is there are SO MANY Truckers clogging our roads that not only will you encounter Truckers who are "having a bad day," but you will encounter Truckers who were having an OK day until they got mired in all the nightmare traffic (that ironically they help to create) and get pissed off. Yet ANOTHER reason to look forward to the transfer of more shipments by rail - the more the better. SignatureJoin Operation Starve the Troll: Message-ID: <elc904lr4ggc1f5765ctdvk55piigeldiv@4ax.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Yet ANOTHER reason to look forward to the transfer of more shipments > by rail - the more the better. Some of them are just dicks. The other day I was driving to work and apparently the dump truck driver in front of me as we went through the tollbooths apparently thought that I was preparing to try to pass him on the shoulder or something, not sure why. Driver started weaving back and forth in front of me, deliberately driving slow, kept this up onto 28 and the next exit ramp where we both got off. As we merged onto 606 the passenger was leaning out of the window screaming something incomprehensible at me. What I did to provoke this or what they hoped to accomplish other than make me wish that I had the ability to shoot their tires out is beyond me. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >That might be your perception but it is slightly skewed. FWIW, the economy >WOULD grind to a halt without truckers. In fact, I predict that if all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Even other trucks. :) An interruption of truck traffic as little as 24 >hours would cause tremendous headaches that would not be easy to cure. LOL. I don't call it Just-Too-Late for nothing. You're truck drivers.... it's slightly skilled labor with the availability of drivers controlled by regulation and a thugish union. >Truckers don't generally feel they should get full priority over all other >traffic on the road. What we do feel is that we try our best not to >inconvenience four-wheelers too much in spite of the fact that most of them >do not return the favor. LOL. What I see on the road is even the best truckers driving in a way that clogs the road. The worst are outright aggressive bullies. > Yes, that gets old after a while and sometimes we >have bad days and do stupid sh.t, because we are human. But I guarantee you >if you see a truck driver deliberately doing something to piss you off, that >truck driver is far outside the norm of truck drivers in general, and even >THAT "Driver" is probably just having a bad day, and dealing with it >adly. -Dave Bullshit. It's road construction season in chicago. All I have to do is obey the (possibly camera enforced) posted limit when the stronger lane is the right lane and I'll have truckers on my a.s being very threatening. On Apr 19, 1:57 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > You're truck > drivers.... it's slightly skilled labor with the availability of drivers > controlled by regulation and a thugish union. Lol. You're practically a black hole of ignorance, and at the same time a nova-like source of unsupported (and obviously false) assertions. And, I'll bet, based on your reports here, you've managed to accumulate a driving record which would preclude your being insured to operate a LCV, operating a 4-wheeler. Nobody knows more about anything than you know less about everything. ----- - gpsman >> I had an incident with a truck driver tonight. I was in the right lane >> behind another car, going about 110. There was a big gap behind me, and >> a tractor-trailer slowly entering an acceleration lane. I expected that >> the truck driver would wait the few seconds for me to pass and then >> accelerate to move into the gap. > Most likely the Driver (that's what we call ourselves, not "Truck Drivers") simply didn't see you until he was already in front of you. But why didn't the driver use the remainder of the acceleration lane to accelerate to at least 80 before attempting to merge? If the driver couldn't accelerate because of whatever was in the trailer, there should have been a police car following it. Then I could have merged left sooner and vacated the right lane for the trailer. > > Most likely the Driver (that's what we call ourselves, not "Truck Drivers") simply didn't see you until he was already in front of you. > > But why didn't the driver use the remainder of the acceleration lane to > accelerate to at least 80 before attempting to merge? Actually that makes perfect sense. If you think the lane is empty, why wait until the last second to change lanes? > If the driver > couldn't accelerate because of whatever was in the trailer, there should > have been a police car following it. OK, written like a true four-wheeler If you needed a police car following you when you can't accelerate because of the load you are pulling, they couldn't possibly manufacture ENOUGH police cars to cover that scenario. It would literally be like a 1:1 ratio of police cars to combination vehicles (18 wheelers). If someone pays a trucking company to haul something, they want their money's worth. The typical semi-trailer (open deck, dry van, reefer) can haul about ~40,000 pounds of cargo without being overweight. And each load is close to maximum weight, deliberately. Or in other words, it costs virtually the same to haul 40,000 pounds as it does to haul 4,000 pounds. So guess how much cargo weight is going to be loaded for each trip??? 40,000 pounds brings the total vehicle weight (gross combination vehicle weight) darn near 80,000 pounds, the legal maximum weight. You will be accelerating for miles to get to highway speed. Literally. Because the typical tractor has the cheap (energy efficient) engine in it. Like an oversized SUV with a small 4-cylinder engine. Now imagine the SUV is 20,000 pounds with the same engine and that is a pretty good comparison. :) -Dave >> > Most likely the Driver (that's what we call ourselves, not "Truck Drivers") simply didn't see you until he was already in front of you. >> >> But why didn't the driver use the remainder of the acceleration lane to >> accelerate to at least 80 before attempting to merge? > >Actually that makes perfect sense. If you think the lane is empty, why wait until the last second to change lanes? IME the trucker doesn't care if it is empty or not. >> If the driver >> couldn't accelerate because of whatever was in the trailer, there should >> have been a police car following it. >OK, written like a true four-wheeler If you needed a police car >following you when you can't accelerate because of the load you are >pulling, they couldn't possibly manufacture ENOUGH police cars to > cover that scenario. He means if you're such a hazard in traffic that you have to drive like that you should have an escort. In other words, it's a non-excuse. BTW Carriage returns are your friend ya know. > If you think the lane is empty, why wait until the last second to change lanes? Merging from the acceleration lane is not changing lanes. You are required to accelerate on the acceleration lane, or stop and wait. It is the responsibility of the merger to check for approaching traffic and to merge into a gap after having accelerated to a reasonable speed. > If you needed a police car following you when you can't accelerate because of the load you are pulling, they couldn't possibly manufacture ENOUGH police cars to cover that scenario. If you are unable to accelerate to the speed of traffic, you are a hazard and you need to have a car following the trailer to warn approaching traffic. > It would literally be like a 1:1 ratio of police cars to combination vehicles (18 wheelers). That's odd because this is probably the only time that I've had an incident with a merge-impaired tractor-trailer driver. Everyone else has seemed to understand that the acceleration lane is for accelerating, and that approaching traffic isn't supposed to stop to "let them in" to the roadway. > 40,000 pounds brings the total vehicle weight (gross combination vehicle weight) darn near 80,000 pounds, the legal maximum weight. You will be accelerating for miles to get to highway speed. It seems that "legal" is not "safe". I would refuse to transport if I believed that the engine or brakes were inadequate for the load. >> If you needed a police car following you when you can't accelerate >> because of the load you are pulling, they couldn't possibly manufacture [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and you need to have a car following the trailer to warn approaching > traffic. Well then it is your honest opinion that -every- truck needs to have a car following the trailer to warn approaching traffic. That's a valid opinion I'll choose to neither agree nor disagree with. I will advise you not to hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though. :) >> It would literally be like a 1:1 ratio of police cars to combination >> vehicles (18 wheelers). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that approaching traffic isn't supposed to stop to "let them in" to the > roadway. There are very few merge-impaired 'truck drivers'. However, there are many onramps that are way too short to allow a loaded combination vehicle to reach highway speed before the end of them. We try our best, but when it takes a couple of miles to go from zero to 60 and the onramp is 1/4th mile long? ... >> 40,000 pounds brings the total vehicle weight (gross combination vehicle >> weight) darn near 80,000 pounds, the legal maximum weight. You will be >> accelerating for miles to get to highway speed. > > It seems that "legal" is not "safe". I would refuse to transport if I > believed that the engine or brakes were inadequate for the load. In my opinion, there is no "adequate" engine for an ~80,000 pound vehicle. But refusing to transport for that reason would likely get one unemployed, quick. -Dave >There are very few merge-impaired 'truck drivers'. Yeah, it's not that you're merge impaired. It's that you just don't give a f.ck if a four-wheeler has to slam on the anchors or head to the shoulder because you decided to move into the spot they were occupying. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>There are very few merge-impaired 'truck drivers'. > > Yeah, it's not that you're merge impaired. It's that you just don't > give a f.ck if a four-wheeler has to slam on the anchors or head to > the shoulder because you decided to move into the spot they were > occupying. For some Drivers, that may be true. On the whole though, completely ntrue. -Dave >Most likely the Driver (that's what we call ourselves, not "Truck Drivers") > simply didn't see you until he was already in front of you. Doubtful, since that would have him in the blind area. > I know > what flashing headlamps mean, from one Driver to another it means > "OK to change lanes now" or "thanks for letting me know it was OK to > change lanes now". In that situation it meant 'f you'. I've had truckers flashing high beams at me while riding my rear bumper. I've never seen it used as anything but as a sign of aggression from a trucker. Never 'it's ok to change lanes' and certainly not as 'flash to pass' in the left lane. Always in the right lane when they wanted to throw their weight around. >Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem We post about them too. BTW, you have something agianst CR's? > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:47:06 +0000 > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem when you are driving an 18-wheeler. If you get cut off while driving a Camry, it's a minor annoyance. If you get cut off while driving an International Prostar pulling 40,000 pounds of potatoes, it is a heart-stopping OH sh.t moment. :) -Dave I don't find it ironic at all. Stupid car drivers cause truckers all sorts of problems, and stupid truckers cause car drivers lots of problems. Just like stupid car drivers cause other car drivers lots of problems, and I would assume that stupid truckers cause other truckers problems. Unfortunately, it's safest to assume that >50% of either category are stupid, aggressive, unaware, or all three, and WILL do something dangerous in front of/ behind/ next to you. Used to be that it was safe to assume that the majority of truckers were skilled, aware, and courteous but that is no longer true. Either that or they are more courteous in western PA/Ohio where I did most of my driving when younger and that they're less so here (metro DC area.) nate > Unfortunately, it's safest to assume that >50% of either category are > stupid, aggressive, unaware, or all three, and WILL do something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nate Well I used to drive all 48 and Canada, I still drive all 48. From what I observe, the majority of truckers are skilled, aware and courteous. Only problem is, most of them don't know how to drive in reverse. (!) -Dave > > Unfortunately, it's safest to assume that >50% of either category are > > stupid, aggressive, unaware, or all three, and WILL do something [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well I used to drive all 48 and Canada, I still drive all 48. From what I observe, the majority of truckers are skilled, aware and courteous. Only problem is, most of them don't know how to drive in reverse. (!) -Dave Maybe I live in a rare pocket of idiocy then. It's a rare day that I don't see a semi either ruthlessly tailgating a 4-wheeler (sometimes who deserves it; sometimes even in the right lane!) cutting someone off or other rude/aggressive/unaware behavior. nate > > Well I used to drive all 48 and Canada, I still drive all 48. From what I observe, the majority of truckers are skilled, aware and courteous. Only problem is, most of them don't know how to drive in reverse. (!) -Dave > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > nate Oh I see that sh.t also, and it really pisses me off. But I see a MUCH GREATER percentage of "car" drivers pulling sh.t like that. -Dave >> > Well I used to drive all 48 and Canada, I still drive all 48. From what I observe, the majority of truckers are skilled, aware and courteous. Only problem is, most of them don't know how to drive in reverse. (!) -Dave >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Oh I see that sh.t also, and it really pisses me off. But I see a MUCH GREATER percentage of "car" drivers pulling sh.t like that. -Dave Percentage is about the same. There are just a lot more passenger vehicle drivers. >> > Unfortunately, it's safest to assume that >50% of either category are >> > stupid, aggressive, unaware, or all three, and WILL do something [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >who deserves it; sometimes even in the right lane!) cutting someone >off or other rude/aggressive/unaware behavior. No you don't live in a rare pocket. It's the same thing for me. I see aggressive tailgating and worse frequently. > <>Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem when you are driving an 18-wheeler. Percentage-wise, I think truck drivers deal with, I dunno, 2-3000% more merge impaired drivers as will any 4-wheeler in a specified period of time. Those who complain nobody keeps right ought to drive a truck for a few miles. Afterward they may think it's the most oft obeyed law in the land. Still, the general level of driving skill and courtesy exhibited by truck drivers is not any better than the average 4-wheeler's. And, perhaps contrary to popular belief, they were never any better. And, they don't generally know where the best food is either. ----- - gpsman > > <>Your post is oh so ironic as merge-impaired four-wheelers are a HUGE problem when you are driving an 18-wheeler. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a truck for a few miles. Afterward they may think it's the most oft > obeyed law in the land. I'm gonna have to see my doctor. If I'm agreeing with you, I'm definitely ill. :) > Still, the general level of driving skill and courtesy exhibited by > truck drivers is not any better than the average 4-wheeler's. Whoops, ya lost me again. Guess I'll cancel my doctor's appointment. Only place I see 'truck drivers' are truly clueless is at the truck stops. It seems at least 80% of them really don't know how to drive in reverse. And many of the MOST clueless reverse drivers have the 'million mile' emblems on the sides of the tractor, too. > And, perhaps contrary to popular belief, they were never any better. It's a popular belief because it was always true, and it still is. > And, they don't generally know where the best food is either. That's because good food doesn't exist anymore. It's all large chain fast crap over-processed garbage. If good food was still out there, we WOULD find it. :) -Dave >I had an incident with a truck driver tonight. I was in the right lane >behind another car, going about 110. There was a big gap behind me, and >a tractor-trailer slowly entering an acceleration lane. I expected that >the truck driver would wait the few seconds for me to pass and then >accelerate to move into the gap. Silly you. Everyone knows that when Truckers decide to change lanes, they need to change lanes RIGHT NOW, and they don't care if they pull out directly in front of an oncoming 4-wheeler in the process. I can't decide if they simply don't check their mirrors, or if they actually do it on purpose because they get off on screwing with car drivers. >The truck driver then appeared to flash its headlamps at me. Could that >mean, "Sorry for being so stupid as to force you to stop, when I could >have merged into that big gap behind you!" or "You're an idiot for >cutting me off - you're supposed to swerve into the cars on your left or >stop to accommodate me and my MFFY attitude!"? It was probably a "Curses! Foiled again!!" Maybe he was pissed at being unable to trap you behind him? :) SignatureJoin Operation Starve the Troll: Don't respond to his posts or click on his web site. Deny him the attention he so desperately craves and he'll go away! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.