 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2008Medically Unfit Truckers Still on the Road
I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking School? [Follow the link for the full article.] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijNvFbFNKbFcySzH3CGPFyNSbu5AD92268580 Medically unfit truck drivers still on roads By HOPE YEN and FRANK BASS 3 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) Hundreds of thousands of tractor-trailer and bus drivers in the United States carry commercial driver's licenses despite also qualifying for full federal disability payments, and some of those drivers have suffered seizures, heart attacks or unconscious spells, according to a new U.S. safety study obtained by The Associated Press. The problems threatening highway travelers persist despite years of government warnings and hundreds of deaths and injuries blamed on commercial truck and bus drivers who blacked out, collapsed or suffered major health problems behind the wheels of vehicles that can weigh 40 tons or more. "We have a major public safety problem, and we haven't corrected it," said Gerald Donaldson, senior research director at the Washington-based Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, whose members include consumer, health and safety groups and insurance companies. "You have an agency that is favorably disposed to maintaining the integrity of the industry's economic situation." Truckers violating federal medical rules have been caught in every state, according to a review by the AP of 7.3 million commercial driver violations compiled by the Transportation Department in 2006, the latest data available. Texas, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, New Jersey, Minnesota and Ohio were states where drivers were sanctioned most frequently for breaking medical rules, such as failing to carry a valid medical certificate. Those 12 states accounted for half of all such violations in the United States. Consider these cases: _A Florida bus driver who suffers from lung disease and uses three daily inhalers to control breathing told congressional investigators that he "occasionally blacks out and forgets things." He works as a substitute driver despite not having a medical certificate, and his commercial license expires in 2010. The driver, who was not identified but will figure prominently in a congressional hearing this week, has collected Social Security benefits since 1994. He confided to investigators that he "gets winded" walking to his mailbox but has no problem driving a passenger bus. _A Virginia trucker with a prosthetic leg from a farm accident more than 10 years ago is permitted to drive tanker trucks until at least 2012, even though he doesn't have the proper federal paperwork required for amputees. Virginia revoked the medical license for the official who approved him to drive over charges the official was caught illegally distributing controlled substances. _George Albright Jr., 61, smashed his 70,000-pound tractor-trailer into congested traffic on Interstate 70 in June 2006, killing four women in a Ford sedan about 30 miles east of Columbia, Mo. Albright's employer agreed earlier this year to pay $18 million in a settlement. A Missouri jury acquitted Albright this month on four counts of second-degree involuntary manslaughter, after his lawyers argued in court that a diabetic episode "put him in an altered state of consciousness." Albright wasn't injured. _A gasoline tanker plunged from an overpass and exploded in flames on Interstate 95 near Baltimore in January 2004, killing four people. Witnesses reported the driver slumped over the wheel. Maryland investigators concluded the driver, Jackie M. Frost, had suffered a heart attack or other medical emergency, but his family disputed that. _The driver of a 15-passenger "Tippy Toes" day-care bus traveling 63 mph on Interstate 240 in Memphis, Tenn., in April 2002 crashed into a bridge, killing the driver and four of the six children aboard. The National Transportation Safety Board said the driver, Wesley B. Hudson, 27, fell asleep, "quite likely due to an undiagnosed sleep disorder." Investigators said children sometimes had to wake up Hudson, whom the NTSB described as obese and a marijuana user. _A 55-passenger bus rolled off Interstate 610 in New Orleans in May 1999, killing 22 passengers. The NTSB said the bus driver, Frank Bedell, 46, suffered life-threatening kidney and heart conditions but held a valid license and medical certificate. Moments before the crash, a passenger recounted seeing the driver slumped in his seat. Bedell died three months later of an apparent heart-related illness. Investigators said he was treated at least 20 times in the 21 months before the accident for various ailments. Some truckers said the government should enforce existing rules, not make new ones. "Do you enjoy your clothing and house? Without the truck driver you would have none of it," said Gary Hull, 52, a trucker for a Louisiana company, as he drove from Edinburg, Texas, to Mansfield, La. "Our economy is based on the truck. People don't understand the ramifications of making it more restrictive for truck drivers to drive." [As if this tired old platitude somehow justifies allowing medically unfit drivers to continue killing innocent people. This brilliant "Trucker Logic" must be what they teach at the GPSTroll Graduate School...] Hull said most drivers are hard workers who earn a modest salary and cope with rising diesel prices. New regulations could add to costs and force truckers to evade the rules, he said. [I guess getting a better job just isn't an option for these losers?] The Transportation Department said 5,300 people died in crashes involving large commercial trucks or buses in 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, and about 126,000 more were injured. A federal safety study last summer found that cases where drivers fell asleep, suffered heart attacks or seizures or otherwise were physically impaired were a leading cause of serious crashes involving large trucks. But those cases included healthy drivers who fell asleep. [Red Bull and/or Speed can only do so much.] "The problem is major. It's one of the biggest causes of occupational death in the United States today," said Dr. Kurt Hegmann, chairman of the FMCSA's medical oversight board, which is urging more doctor visits in many cases for truckers with serious medical conditions. Families of crash victims said stronger safety rules can't happen soon enough. William Hieronymus II of Salina, Kan., said he remembers eating cereal each morning with his 10-month-old son. His son William and wife, Amanda, died in May 2005 when a truck crossed a median and struck their SUV. The driver, Scott A. Wegrzyn, pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide. Prosecutors said Wegrzyn knew he suffered from sleep apnea and went to a second doctor without disclosing the condition to obtain the medical certification he needed to drive. [...]  SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. > I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking > School? [Follow the link for the full article.] > > http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijNvFbFNKbFcySzH3CGPFyNSbu5AD92268580 > > Medically unfit truck drivers still on roads As has been pointed out in another ng, the referenced study simply doesn't exist, and could not exist, as it would be a logistical impossibility to gather some of the statistics cited by the "study". And while I disagree with much of the assertions in the article, I will be the first to point out that there are a huge percentage of Drivers who hold CDLs who probably shouldn't. Or at least, they should not qualify for the medical cert that you need to USE a CDL. I see some drivers who weigh more than the tractors they are driving. One qualification for a medical certificate is that your blood pressure must be normal. So where did these 15-ton drivers with extreme hypertension NOT able to be controlled by meds, get a medical cert? That's just one example that I see almost daily. Another thing that makes me wonder is, I see a lot of class 8 tractors with handicapped thingies hanging in the windscreen area somewhere. And yes, there are HANDICAPPED parking spaces at most truck stops. Let's see . . . . you can climb up and down a ladder many times a day, hike great distances multiple times daily (even from the handicapped spots), and use both hands and both feet simultaneously to operate an 40 ton vehicle for 11 hours a day. You are handicapped HOW, exactly???? If you're really qualified for special parking privileges, there is no way you should be able to get a medical cert to operate a commercial vehicle. IMHO OTOH, the article cites examples of tragedies that the article suggests we should seek to avoid through greater regulation. One of those dangers is heart-attack. AS I wrote elsewhere, if you want to prevent heart-attacks behind the wheel of commercial vehicles, you simply can't let human beings drive commercial vehicles. As has been written elsewhere, the solution to the made-up problem in the article (accident rates among commercial vehicles are actually IN DECLINE, and have been for several years...) is to simply enforce existing regs. If there was true enforcement of existing regs, probably 20% of current commercial drivers would be forced to look for work as something other than an OTR (over the road) Driver. Yard jockeys are always needed, for example. And they always need more fork truck drivers at the yards. -Dave >> I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking >> School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >As has been pointed out in another ng, the referenced study simply doesn't >exist, and could not exist A quote from the article: "...according to a new U.S. safety study obtained by The Associated Press." So you're claim is that the AP is flat out lying? >And while I disagree with much of the assertions in the article, I will be >the first to point out that there are a huge percentage of Drivers who hold >CDLs who probably shouldn't. Or at least, they should not qualify for the >medical cert that you need to USE a CDL. [...] >I see some drivers who weigh more >than the tractors they are driving. One qualification for a medical >certificate is that your blood pressure must be normal. So where did these >15-ton drivers with extreme hypertension NOT able to be controlled by meds, >get a medical cert? That's just one example that I see almost daily. And yet the industry turns a blind eye. Why? Aren't there enough healthy people who are willing to take these jobs? >OTOH, the article cites examples of tragedies that the article suggests we >should seek to avoid through greater regulation. One of those dangers is >heart-attack. AS I wrote elsewhere, if you want to prevent heart-attacks >behind the wheel of commercial vehicles, you simply can't let human beings >drive commercial vehicles. That statement is only true if everyone is equally at risk for having a heart attack, something you and I both know is not the case. That 300 pound guy with the hypertension, for example - how many orders of magnitude more likely is he to have a heart attack than a physically fit 20-something? >As has been written elsewhere, the solution to the made-up problem in the >article (accident rates among commercial vehicles are actually IN DECLINE, >and have been for several years...) is to simply enforce existing regs. OK, I'll buy that - so how do we get the powers-that-be (doctors, trucking companies, cops) to enforce the existing regs? SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. > A quote from the article: > > "...according to a new U.S. safety study obtained by The Associated > Press." > > So you're claim is that the AP is flat out lying? I'm stating with absolute certainty that someone is guilty of (at the least) not verifying their sources. I wouldn't necessarily say that someone is flat out lying. Just passing on facts that someone else logically pulled out of their a.s. :) Again, some of the stats in the supposed study can NOT be known, but are stated as if they are absolute fact. What does THAT tell you? > And yet the industry turns a blind eye. Why? Aren't there enough > healthy people who are willing to take these jobs? The answer to that question depends on the price of diesel fuel. Normally, there is a great shortage of over-the-road truck drivers (what are needed most) but an over-abundance of local/regional drivers (because they want to stay closer to home). With the price of diesel so high, many former owner/operators (independent contractors who own the vehicle they drive) are signing on as OTR company drivers, creating a bit of a surplus of over-the-road truck drivers, at the moment. BUT, that surplus can't last forever. Essentially, it means that there are more drivers DRIVING FEWER TRUCKS (because the former O/Os have their rigs parked at home, not moving freight). Meanwhile the quantity of freight that needs to be moved over-the-road is constantly increasing. That's why the current surplus of drivers can not last indefinitely. You can't have fewer trucks on the road moving more freight. It's not mathematically possible, no matter how many drivers you throw at the problem. > That statement is only true if everyone is equally at risk for having > a heart attack, something you and I both know is not the case. That > 300 pound guy with the hypertension, for example - how many orders of > magnitude more likely is he to have a heart attack than a physically > fit 20-something? If you're going to eliminate every driver with an increased risk for heart-attack, you are going to eliminate better than 80% of people willing to do the job. (note the willing to do the job part) Driving over the road is a lifestyle choice, definitely not for everybody. We could HOPE for the ideal situation where only college athletes straight out of college want to go into trucking for a living. ROFLMAO!!!! (how likely do you think that is) Most OTR drivers have an increased risk for heart attack for the simple reason that they are older. The system itself encourages this. You can't work as a truck driver (well, not OTR) until you are 21. How many young folks do you think are going to live at home until they are 21 just so that they can be a trucker? OTOH, how many are going to pursue education and/or other careers up until age 21, and then decide that they want to be a trucker? Many rookies into this lifestyle are middle aged. That's right, many of the ROOKIES have increased risk of heart-attack. You are severely handicapping the talent pool if you even think of discriminating on basis of increased risk of heart-attack. As I stated before, how many college athletes do you think will leave college and enter trucking? > >As has been written elsewhere, the solution to the made-up problem in the > >article (accident rates among commercial vehicles are actually IN DECLINE, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trucking companies, cops) to enforce the existing regs? > -- I think the enforcement effort needs to concentrate on doctors. Companies have a strong incentive to allow drivers behind the wheel if the doctor says it's OK. That incentive is, they need to keep freight moving, and the trucks don't drive themselves. But if you spend just half an hour in the truck parking area of any major truck stop, you will see that the doctors definitely are medically qualifying many drivers that should NOT be qualifie d. Just my opinion, but the doctors who do the testing need more oversight. Possibly. The existing (EXISTING) regs would remove a significant number of drivers from the road, if they were actually enforced. But it's obvious that many doctors are bending the rules a bit. -Dave >> A quote from the article: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I'm stating with absolute certainty that someone is guilty of (at the least) >not verifying their sources. I guess it would help if they NAMED the study, but perhaps they can't do that yet because it hasn't yet been published. >> That statement is only true if everyone is equally at risk for having >> a heart attack, something you and I both know is not the case. That [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >heart-attack, you are going to eliminate better than 80% of people willing >to do the job. If that's what it takes to weed out the unfit, so be it. >(note the willing to do the job part) Well, if 80% of the labor pool were to disappear overnight, wages for those jobs would skyrocket as employers desperately try to fill those vacant positions. As those wages go up, I think you'd find a lot more people were (now) willing to do the job. That's the way the free market works. :) >Most OTR drivers have an increased risk for heart attack for the simple >reason that they are older. The system itself encourages this. You can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >other careers up until age 21, and then decide that they want to be a >trucker? If it's truly a lifestyle choice, then those who are called to it will be called to it regardless. SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. > >If you're going to eliminate every driver with an increased risk for > >heart-attack, you are going to eliminate better than 80% of people > >willing to do the job. > > If that's what it takes to weed out the unfit, so be it. Careful what you wish for. You are flirting with total economic collapse. That's not a theory. To start with, if we lost that many truck drivers at once, all of North America would lose electricity and running water within a couple of weeks at most. Again, that's not a theory. > >(note the willing to do the job part) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people were (now) willing to do the job. That's the way the free > market works. :) Really? So you're saying you'd be willing to pay $20 for a loaf of bread? If free market increases wages for truck drivers significantly, it will lead to hyper-inflation of prices of just about everything. Free market works to a point. The problem is, the price of everything is dependent on CHEAP transportation. Drivers' wages are part of that equation. You can't increase drivers wages without paying more for ....ummm, everything. The same can not be said for most other careers. For example, Increase wages of electrical linemen, and it will just affect your electric bill. Increase wages of truck drivers, and everything (and I do mean everything) will see a corresponding price increase. While I'd love to see my own wages increase significantly, I'm not sure I could afford that!!!! At best, it would be a wash. That is, I might see a few more hundred bucks in my check each week, and spend a few more hundred bucks on groceries and other expenses. Blah... > Drivers' wages are part of that > equation. You can't increase drivers wages without paying more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drivers, and everything (and I do mean everything) will see a > corresponding price increase. Umm, everyone uses electricity. Significant increases in the electric bill would get passed on to all consumers, just as increases in trucker's wages. But a significant increase in trucking costs could have other shifts in the economy, it does not mean people will automatically pay for it. Locally produced food or products would gain favor over stuff brought in from distant points*. Some shippers would go to rail or air. Also, an increase in truckers' wages would not result in a "corresponding" increase in costs since wages are only a part of the total freight cost. There is the capital cost of the truck itself, terminal facilities, and the cost of fuel. And of course transport is only part of the total wholesale product cost, and of the final retail cost. Taking the economic analysis a step further, there is also an economic social cost if a trucker has a medical problem that results in a major accident. It is hard to calculate the costs since they're intangible and very variable, but at least there is the loss of time of other motorists delayed by a road closure due to an accident--and sometimes the road closure is very long and the number of motorists delayed very large. If there's an accident victim who is badly injured, there is the social cost of the high medical costs of caring for the person, impact on family, etc. It is certainly in society's economic interest to reduce risk of accident as much as possible. However, I'm not sure medical conditions are a significant cause of trucking accidents, so there is nothing to eliminate. Separately the risk of an _incapacitating_ heart attack was mentioned. (Many heart attack victims do not suddenly keel over at the wheel, but feel pain and can stop safely.) Obviously some people are more 'at risk' than others, but in many cases the risk remains relatively low. Perhaps someone who gets a test and they find severe blockage and recommend bypass surgery NOW shouldn't be driving, but I suspect most people in that situation would not choose to drive. Frankly I think the biggest safety risk to the public is drivers going too long (through "creative" logging) or driving while fatigued. The monetary pressure to keep the truck moving is enormous, especially for independents who make nothing standing still and are on a thin margin to begin with. * Due to the high price of gasoline I've bought things locally and paid more for the product, rather than spend gas to drive a distance to a discount store. > It is certainly in society's economic interest to reduce risk of > accident as much as possible. However, I'm not sure medical > conditions are a significant cause of trucking accidents, so there is > nothing to eliminate. Good point. I don't think medical problems are a huge cause of accidents, either. > Frankly I think the biggest safety risk to the public is drivers going > too long (through "creative" logging) or driving while fatigued. The > monetary pressure to keep the truck moving is enormous, especially for > independents who make nothing standing still and are on a thin margin > to begin with. Actually, I'd feel less pressure to keep moving if I was an independent. When you answer to dispatchers, dispatchers like to push you to keep moving and fudge your logs to cover the fact that you've driven 120 hours in the past 6 days. They do this under the direction of middle management types. A tractor sitting still is not a good thing for the company. So the economic pressure is to keep the tractor moving, and safety be DAMNED. If you are independent (owner operator) you have a deadline for delivery, but it is known BEFORE you CHOOSE to accept the load. If you have to run more than about 600 miles a day in good weather to make the deadline? Or if you know you'll go past your 70 hour limit? Just choose a different load. From someone on the inside, I can tell you without a doubt, the biggest safety risk to the public related to trucking is .... DISPATCHERS You want to reduce truck accident rates? Mandate stiff penalties (jail time, not fines) for dispatchers and managers who knowingly pressure drivers to run illegal. Don't worry about the independents. They are a small (and ever shrinking) percentage of drivers, and can pretty much take care of themselves. You want to make an impact on safety, you need to protect the company drivers from being punished for daring to try to run legal. -Dave (one of the few company drivers who always runs legal, and logs it legal too...and has taken plenty of crap for doing so...) > Good point. I don't think medical problems are a huge cause of > accidents, either. [As an aside, I was focusing on commercial truckers. I do know of several fatal accidents where the driver may have had a medical problem; but there were plain vehicles. In one case it was alleged (not confirmed) that the driver was told not to drive but he did anyway.] I would suspect there are a few truckers, under economic pressure, would drive even if warned not to. > Actually, I'd feel less pressure to keep moving if I was an > independent. When you answer to dispatchers, dispatchers like to push [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thing for the company. So the economic pressure is to keep the tractor > moving, and safety be DAMNED. An independent is not making any money while standing still, while his fixed costs to pay off his rig continue along. The more overall runs he makes in a year the more money he makes. Also, by promising faster delivery he may be able to get more business or a bonus. Like a friend of mine who owns a small business, he has to go into work or he gets nothing for the day yet his fixed costs continue just the same. (At least thankfully fuel does not spoil if not used, unlike a food establishment). > > Actually, I'd feel less pressure to keep moving if I was an > > independent. When you answer to dispatchers, dispatchers like to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > he makes in a year the more money he makes. Also, by promising faster > delivery he may be able to get more business or a bonus. What you say is true. However, there is LESS pressure to run illegal and falsify logs when you are an independent contractor (owner / operator). What I believe you are missing is the fact that WITHOUT running illegal and WITHOUT fudging your logs, it is very easy to run 10-12K miles per month. That's 2500-3000 miles per week, and assumes that you only work 48 weeks per year. If you are inclined to be an independent contractor, you can get gobs of miles (gobs of loads) without killing yourself or pushing yourself hard enough to get yourself in trouble with the law. When you are independent, you are working as your own dispatcher, in the sense that you decide which loads you will run and which you won't. No doubt that there are some drivers that push themselves too hard. But in contrast look at the company drivers...they are working under the direction of a dispatcher. The dispatcher doesn't know or care how many hours the driver has worked. The dispatcher has load A that needs to be moved from point B to point C. So they assign the load to driver D. If driver D doesn't have the hours to run the load, driver D can reject the load. Unfortunately, driver D can not reject the load without fear of losing his job by doing so. That's because dispatchers, with backing of middle managers, pressure drivers to run illegal and falsify logs to cover it up. As an independent, if someone told me to drive 120 hours in 6 days (for example) I'd laugh and hang up on them. When you've got dozens of load offers, many of them good, and the choice to choose or reject any or all of them, you don't have to put up with crap like that. As a company driver (most drivers on the road), you take the load that's offered, or you walk. You walk HOME, that is. That's why I say that the number one public safety issue related to trucking is dispatchers. If you want to improve public safety related to trucking, you need to concentrate enforcement on dispatchers. That is where the real problem lies. -Dave > From someone on the inside, I can tell you without a doubt, the > biggest safety risk to the public related to trucking is .... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > runs legal, and logs it legal too...and has taken plenty of crap for > doing so...) Interesting views and good ideas. But I suspect the trucking businesses have their own powerful lobby to fight back on this sort of thing. >Interesting views and good ideas. But I suspect the trucking >businesses have their own powerful lobby to fight back on this sort of >thing. I don't know about that. If the trucking business lobby was as powerful as you think, trucking wouldn't be nearly as tightly regulated as it is already. If you want to be a successful truck driver, you need two primary qualifications: 1) Be a lawyer, so you can read and understand all the millions of federal and state regulations that apply to you, much of it written in almost indecipherable legal jargon 2) Be able to go at least 12 hours or longer between bathroom breaks. Until you've worked as a truck driver, you won't understand why this is important. But the short answer is, you can't park an 18-wheeler just anywhere. All those blue signs you see on the interstate advertising food, fuel, lodging, etc. at each exit? Most do not apply to trucks. Rest areas are often no trucks allowed, have no truck parking, or limited truck parking that's always full. Truck stops are a good bet (if there's one nearby), but forget about trying to find a spot to park at a truck stop after about 8 PM. On a side note, states are seemingly desperate to stop trucks parking on exit / entrance ramps. That's often the last resort when you reach your hours limit and have to shut down. If you can't park at a rest area, you can't park at a truck stop, you can't park on an exit or entrance ramp, you have a choice to make...keep driving illegally until you fall asleep and kill some people (including yourself) or ... gee, I guess there is no option B. Bummer. People need to realize what a serious safety hazard the shortage of overnight truck parking is. -Dave >> >If you're going to eliminate every driver with an increased risk for >> >heart-attack, you are going to eliminate better than 80% of people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Careful what you wish for. You are flirting with total economic >collapse. That's not a theory. You're right - it's such complete bullshit, it's not even good enough to qualify as a theory. That's the tired old Trucker refrain: "Everything you get comes by truck; without us, the economy would collapse, blah blah blah." Somehow, we managed to do without trucks until sometime in the 1930s or so. If necessary, we'd find a way to do without them again. GUARANTEED. >> >(note the willing to do the job part) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Really? So you're saying you'd be willing to pay $20 for a loaf of >bread? Or do without. >If free market increases wages for truck drivers significantly, >it will lead to hyper-inflation of prices of just about everything. Or we would find alternatives to shipping everything by truck. You'll be amazed at how creative we can become. :) >Free market works to a point. The problem is, the price of everything >is dependent on CHEAP transportation. Then we're doomed regardless. Even if there are plenty or Truckers, the price of FUEL is still shooting through the stratosphere. We're looking at high prices no matter what. Better start gettting ready. SignatureQ: What's the difference between a traffic snake and a real one? A: The traffic snake's a.shole at the *front* end. > >Careful what you wish for. You are flirting with total economic > >collapse. That's not a theory. > > You're right - it's such complete bullshit, it's not even good enough > to qualify as a theory. Nobody seriously questions that the economy would collapse without truckers. Not seriously. > That's the tired old Trucker refrain: "Everything you get comes by > truck; without us, the economy would collapse, blah blah blah." > Somehow, we managed to do without trucks until sometime in the 1930s > or so. If necessary, we'd find a way to do without them again. > GUARANTEED. Yeah, I've heard that argument before, too. You do realize that all of the following is true: - Our electrical grid is inter-dependent and programmed to shut down automatically if too many power plants go dark - A good percentage of our electricity is still generated using coal - Coal is delivered to power plants by train usually, but first it gets delivered to the railhead by truck While you are trying to figure out how to live without trucks, you will be in the dark with no running water. If you live in the U.S. or Canada, that is. > >If free market increases wages for truck drivers significantly, > >it will lead to hyper-inflation of prices of just about everything. > > Or we would find alternatives to shipping everything by truck. You'll > be amazed at how creative we can become. :) The problem is time. If we had to do without trucks, of COURSE we would find alternatives, eventually. Too bad about starving to death while we're trying to work through the problems, though. All possible alternatives take time to implement. Measured in decades, BTW. We as a society are addicted to the economy that rides on 18 wheels. That's not a problem that can be solved within a one-hour episode of Intervention. > >Free market works to a point. The problem is, the price of > >everything is dependent on CHEAP transportation. > > Then we're doomed regardless. Even if there are plenty or Truckers, > the price of FUEL is still shooting through the stratosphere. We're > looking at high prices no matter what. Better start gettting ready. On that point, I am in total agreement. If the price of fuel doesn't come down soon, we're likely going to revert to an agrarian type of society. Can this be avoided? YES, if we started preparing about 30 years ago, possibly. Time is the real problem. Every problem can be solved, given time. As far as the energy crisis goes, we ran out of time decades ago. -Dave > I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking > School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > suffered major health problems behind the wheels of vehicles that can > weigh 40 tons or more. This is awful but it's really no worse than the way we let convicted drunk drivers and extreme speeders continue to drive. Americans have simply been brainwashed into thinking highway murder is ok. >> I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking >> School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >drivers and extreme speeders continue to drive. Americans have simply been >brainwashed into thinking highway murder is ok. How come they've got PLENTY of money for the Iraq war, the 'drug war' and so many other excercises in authoritarianism ... but not enough money to identify totally screwed-up truck drivers ??? >>> I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking >>> School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > enough money to identify totally screwed-up > truck drivers ??? Because dumbest American a.ses picked them. >>> I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking >>> School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > enough money to identify totally screwed-up > truck drivers ??? let alone totally screwed up and disfunctional car drivers. Of which there are 10 times as many. >> I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking >> School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >drivers and extreme speeders continue to drive. Americans have simply been >brainwashed into thinking highway murder is ok. While absolutely NO drivers of any other vehicle is required to take a physical as a condition to drive. I would venture a guess and say that less than 2% of all truckers do not qualify medically and are driving. A trucker can not drive with the aid of manual devices should he have no limbs to drive with. A car driver is. A trucker can not drive with any prostethic device what so ever, while a car driver is allowed to do so. A trucker who is found to have been driving for 13 hours straight is shut down. Nobody gives a damn about how many hours a car driver has been driving. If a trucker is found to have a BAC of 0.04, he gets shut down and could possibly lose his license. Legally, a trucker can't drive within 4 hours of consuming ANY alcohol. Not true with a car driver. 80% of all accidents involving a car and a truck, are caused by the car. That's a known fact. Not a guess. Would you be willing to drive your car under the same conditions a trucker does? I don't think so. >>> I wonder how many of these guys are graduates of the GPSTroll Trucking >>> School? [Follow the link for the full article.] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I would venture a guess and say that less than 2% of all truckers do > not qualify medically and are driving. Your guess, much like you, is inaccurate and stupid. > A trucker can not drive with the aid of manual devices should he have > no limbs to drive with. A car driver is. First of all, your grammar is about as bad as what I imagine is your breath. Second of all, yes, a trucker can drive with prosthetics. > A trucker can not drive with any prostethic device what so ever, while > a car driver is allowed to do so. Source? > A trucker who is found to have been driving for 13 hours straight is > shut down. Nobody gives a damn about how many hours a car driver has > been driving. Awww poor Bullis has been harrassed by THE MAN before. > If a trucker is found to have a BAC of 0.04, he gets shut down and > could possibly lose his license. Legally, a trucker can't drive within > 4 hours of consuming ANY alcohol. Not true with a car driver. Legally, a car driver can be pulled over for any little bit of alcohol, Bullis. Now do go on and tell when you had that BAD BAC of 0.04. > 80% of all accidents involving a car and a truck, are caused by the > car. That's a known fact. Not a guess. Then where is your source on that fact, you idiot? > Would you be willing to drive your car under the same conditions a > trucker does? I don't think so. Not if you were the trucker in question. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are a menace to the road and shouldn't even be operating a bicycle. |
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.