Speed limiter Legislation Debate

[HeavyGunner]

....and yet a 90 year old geezer with no other driving experience except for a compact car can jump behind the wheel of a 40' 300hp motor home with air brakes towing a full size pick up and none of these bs dot rules apply to them. Same goes for people again with no experience other than a car buying a big diesel pickup and a 30-40' 5th wheel with a boat behind that with no bs dot to deal with. The only state I've been in that had it right was Nebraska. When I was pulling bull racks I couldn't travel down the freeway (due to weight restrictions) on my way to Brule so I had to take a secondary highway that paralleled the freeway. Truck speed limit was 70 then it had a pic of a pickup with a fifth wheel and 50mph was their speed limit. Wyoming was great to travel across because there is one speed limit on the interstate for all vehicles. 

[41chevy]

So our hours behind the wheel is limited and now we will limit the speed so the run takes even longer, drivers load numbers are cut down and so is their salary.  Production, labor, consumer costs are higher...sounds like a plan for Soro's railroad market.

Maybe if drivers were educated how to interact with trucks and other heavy vehicles, the accident rate would severely drop. People have no concept of large vehicles speeds . . . guess that's also why they get hit by the big slow trains. Going to limit my speed? well please limit Vinny and Victoria's 170 m.p.h BMW too, so when I'm doing the allowed speed of 63.45 m.p.h. they won't be able slam into the rear end on my unit when they're traveling at 100 m.p.h.. If it's good for me, it's good for them also.

Edited August 29, 2016 by 41chevy

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

DOT estimates, for 60 mph setting:

• Lives saved: 162 to 498
• Serious injuries prevented: 179 to 551
• Minor injuries prevented: 3,356 to 10,306
• Annual costs associated with increased delivery time: $1.534 billion
• Annual fuel savings/GHG reduction: $848 million
• Annual total benefits: $2.695 to $6.522 billion

.

 

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

DOT estimates, for 65 mph setting:

• Lives saved: 65 to 214
• Serious injuries prevented: 70 to 236
• Minor injuries prevented: 1,299 to 4,535
• Annual fuel savings/GHG reduction: $848 million
• Annual costs associated with increased delivery time: $514 million
• Annual total benefits: $1.564 to $3.281 billion

.

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

DOT estimates, for 68 mph setting:

• Lives saved: 27 to 96
• Serious injuries prevented: 30 to 106
• Minor injuries prevented: 560 to 1,987
• Annual fuel savings/GHG reduction: $376 million
• Annual costs associated with increased delivery time: $206 million
• Annual total benefits: $684 million to $1.469 billion

.

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

New vehicle

To determine compliance of new vehicles with the operational requirements for the speed limiting device (i.e., that the vehicle is in fact limited to the set speed), NHTSA is proposing a vehicle-level test that involves accelerating the vehicle and monitoring the vehicle’s speed, similar to the validation procedures currently used in Europe.

However, NHTSA is not proposing requirements to prevent tampering or restrict adjusting the speed setting as part of its portion of the proposal.  Instead, to deter tampering with a vehicle’s speed limiting device or modification of the set speed above the specified maximum set speed after the vehicle is sold, the proposal calls for FMCSA to require motor carriers to maintain the speed limiting devices at a set speed within the permitted range.

NHTSA also is proposing to require that the vehicle set speed and the speed determination parameters be readable through the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) connection, and that the two most recent modifications of the set speed of the speed limiting device and the two most recent modifications of the speed determination parameters be readable and include the time and date of the modifications. 

.

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

Retrofits?

In addition to the new vehicle requirements included in the proposal, NHTSA is considering whether to require commercial vehicles currently on the road to be retrofitted with a speed limiting device with the speed set to no more than a specified speed. 

The agency notes that a retrofit requirement is not included because of concerns about the technical feasibility, cost, enforcement, and small business impacts.  However, DOT is seeking public comment to improve its understanding of the real-world impact of implementing a speed limiting device retrofit requirement.  As an alternative to a retrofit requirement, the agencies are also requesting comment on whether to extend the set speed requirement only to all 26,000-lb. CMVs that are already equipped with a speed limiting device. 

The filing does note the previously expressed concerns of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Assn. (EMA), which pointed out problems retrofitting vehicles manufactured from 1990 to approximately 1994 to 1996, frequently equipped with mechanically controlled engines and mechanical speed limiting devices.  EMA indicated that it would be impractical to retrofit these vehicles with modern ECUs and estimated that it would cost $1,000 to $1,500 per vehicle.

Given the agencies’ concerns about technical feasibility, cost, enforcement, and impacts on small businesses, DOT seeks public comment to improve its understanding of the real-world impact of implementing a speed limiting device retrofit requirement on existing vehicles and whether it is appropriate to have different requirements for these vehicles.

.

 

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

Penalties

Drivers and carriers would be subject to Federal civil penalties if they are determined to have operated CMVs in interstate commerce when the speed limiting device is (1) not functioning, or (2) set at a maximum speed in excess of the maximum specified set speed.

They would be subject to Federal civil penalties of up to $2,750 for drivers and up to $11,000 for employers who allow or require drivers to operate CMVs with speed limiting devices set at speeds greater than the maximum specified set speed.  

.

[kscarbel2]

The case for speed limiters: More political than technical?

Fleet Owner  /  August 29, 2016

Is the Dept. of Transportation “cherry picking” research to support the rulemaking to require speed limiters in heavy-duty commercial vehicles? At least one source—and one that is often cited as providing evidence to support the rule—raises a number of concerns the DOT glosses over, or ignores altogether, including speed differentials, driver fatigue, fuel efficiency, and the overall cost-benefit analysis.

The first footnote in the “executive summary” of the DOT proposal refers to a 2005 paper, “Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,” by researchers at the Mack-Blackwell Rural Transportation Center (MBRTC), a College of Engineering program at the University of Arkansas.

In that initial cite, and in three other footnotes, the paper “confirmed the common-sense conclusion that the severity of a crash increases with increased travel speed”—as, indeed, basic physics determines.

However, while the DOT rulemaking mentions the issue of speed differentials, the 118-page document does not reference the MBRTC report with regard to its primary subject matter. Indeed, after opening the “Safety Benefits” section by citing MBRTC, the proposal refers to two other studies that “observed no consistent safety effects of differential speed limits compared to uniform speed limits.”

The MBRTC report, a survey of available research at the time, also cites those “inconclusive studies,” and says the research did not address the impact of voluntary speed limiters, prevalent even 10 years ago, and so those studies were “inherently flawed.”

More broadly, “the large number of safety studies that were discussed in the literature review indicates that this issue has received a great amount of attention,” the researchers write. “Unfortunately, many of the studies involve more advocacy than science.”

The MBRTC study notes that proponents of lower truck speed limits argue that trucks require longer braking distances for any given speed and lower truck speeds help equalize the stopping distance. Truck drivers surveyed by the researchers, however, contend that their higher seat position allows a longer sight distance (multiple vehicles forward), reducing the effect of the differences in braking distance (to say nothing of the greater stopping power of modern disc-brakes and other safety technologies). The truck drivers are more concerned with the negative effect of greater speed variation and the number of interactions among vehicles.

“It is likely that both of these arguments are correct,” the paper says. “This would indicate that differential speed limits have two effects:

1. the positive effect that results from improved vehicle dynamics (braking and maneuvering) for trucks at lower speeds; and
2. the negative effect of increasing speed variation and the number of interactions among vehicles.

"These two effects of differential speed limits act in opposite directions and ultimately result in no observable effect on highway safety data.”

Driver Viewpoints

Based on a questionnaire, the MBRTC report summarizes driver sentiment on the matter of speed differentials.

Two scenarios that dominated the drivers’ concerns were associated with on-ramps, according to the research.

• The first safety issue related to trucks being “trapped” in the right lane and the increased risk of continually encountering merging traffic.
• The second issue involved trucks not being able to reach traffic speed when merging into traffic flow. They also indicated a concern that lower truck speeds result in congestion and clustering of traffic and bottleneck situations on highways.

Additionally, 87% of the truck drivers responded that speed differentials, whether due to regulated speed limits or company policies, increase the risk of accidents. Truck drivers also raised the issue of unsafe maneuvers by passenger vehicle drivers in overtaking and passing much slower trucks.

If left up to them, the truck drivers indicated that a uniform speed limit of 70 mph for both automobiles and trucks would be both the safest and the most efficient configuration for rural interstate highways. The researchers note that drivers who generally have the ability to travel faster than 70 mph (owner-operators) also agreed that a 70 mph limit would be most appropriate.

Safety managers, however, were somewhat more cautious. While they agreed that differential speed limits increase the probability of accidents, many felt that a uniform limit of 65 mph would be the best alternative.

“Some managers indicated that new, less experienced drivers might benefit more from lower truck speeds, with more experienced drivers being able to handle the higher speeds,” the study says. “Other managers indicated that this policy would put less experienced drivers at additional risk due to the increase in the number of vehicle interactions that they would experience.”

Driver Fatigue

Noting the significance of driver fatigue in crashes, the MBRTC study suggests that while there is no empirical data indicating that increased speed increases fatigue, there are studies that have found that operating time has significant impact on truck driver fatigue.

“One of the methods of reducing driving time and fatigue without reducing transport efficiency or driver pay, would be to travel at a higher speed,” the paper says. “From an hours-of-service perspective, an important issue is whether it would be safer to drive for 10 hours at 70 mph than it would be to drive for 11 hours at 64 mph.”

In the survey, truck drivers stated that driving faster for a shorter duration of time would result in less fatigue and drowsiness. In addition, the consensus of drivers was that driving at the average traffic speed reduces fatigue, according to the report.

However, most of the company safety managers indicated that traveling at higher speeds results in more fatigue. Even when drivers are allowed to use higher speeds, they do not get to their destinations sooner because they stop more frequently and take longer breaks, the managers responded.

In response, most of the truck drivers stated that their driving time between stops is independent of speed and that their stops are based on time rather than distance. But the drivers did indicate that, if the pick and delivery are not adjusted for the higher speed, there is no benefit in getting to the destination early.

Cost Savings

One of the primary reasons for carriers to limit the speed of their trucks is the reduction in fuel consumption, and in ideal situations this is certainly true, the MBRTC report explains. But, in addition to the absolute vehicle speed, speed variance in the traffic flow also has an effect on fuel efficiency when both trucks and automobiles decelerate and accelerate to maneuver around slower traffic.

“The negative impact of traffic speed variation on fuel efficiency has not been addressed in the research literature or as a policy issue,” the study says. “When speed policies are considered, it is important to consider that the driver effect is estimated to be double the effect of vehicle speed. It might be possible that by improving retention, the costs associated with higher speeds might, to some extent, be offset by the ability of more experienced drivers to conserve fuel.”

The study also notes that owner-operators, “who have direct knowledge of their individual operating costs,” as a group preferred higher speeds due to the increased revenue, more flexible scheduling, and the benefits of increased personal time.

Indeed, the researchers point out that their financial cost-benefit analysis illustrates how the results are very sensitive to estimates of the operational costs associated with increased truck speed.

“Unfortunately, although there are many opinions, there is very little verifiable data that can be used to make these estimates,” the paper states.

The study’s results ranged from an annual decrease in net profit per truck of $2,371 for the higher estimates of speed-related operational costs, to a net profit increase of $442 for the lower estimates.

“Even the costs derived using the higher estimates could be offset, to some extent, if the higher speeds and increased pay would improve driver retention,” the study says. “In addition, the number of trucks necessary for the same annual mileage would be reduced, lowering the truck inventory costs for commercial fleets.”

Popular Misconceptions

One of the common misconceptions that motorists have is that they are often passed by trucks, the MBRTC report notes. However, results of the researches’ simulation study indicated that the frequency of automobiles being passed by trucks is very low.

Using the traffic speed data from the uniform 70 mph sites in the study, an automobile traveling at the mean traffic speed (71.5 mph) would be passed by only 30 trucks during a 1,000 mile trip on a rural interstate.

Similarly, many sources in the popular press refer to the statistics that indicate that more than one-third of the highway accidents are associated with “speeding.”

However, speeding is defined as “traveling faster than the posted limits” or “traveling too fast for conditions.” Because there is no differentiation of these two categories in much of the literature, the effect of the posted speed limits on the number of accidents and fatalities is probably highly exaggerated in the popular literature, the report states.

Conclusion

“Although there is an abundance of opinion on many of the issues, there is very little empirical, verifiable, and scientifically valid data available from either public or private sources,” the MBRTC study concludes. “It is evident that there is a need for additional research in many of the areas relevant to the maximum speed for heavy trucks. The decisions pertaining to the state regulated absolute and/or differential speed limits for trucks will continue to be a political, as well as a technical issue.”

Does the DOT proposal address all of these issues? I'm not convinced. But, to be fair, I've yet to dig as deeply into the all-important crash data on which the lives-saved projections are based—and I was already familiar with the MBRTC study.

And gathering evidence, publishing the government's thinking, and opening the process up for review is how the rulemaking process is designed. Still, the rule was held for White House review for more than year, though we don't know why. On the other hand, big trucking and "safety advocates" support speed limiters, and Congress is backing the regulation, too.

So something's coming—we just don't know how fast.

.

[kscarbel2]

SPEED LIMITERS: Feds propose speed limiters for trucks, but not a speed

Jami Jones, Land Line managing editor  /  August 26, 2016

Federal regulators are proposing to speed limit trucks, but they just don’t know what speed they want them set at.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a preliminary copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking on Friday, Aug. 26, that seeks to mandate speed limiters on heavy-duty trucks.

As expected, the proposed regulation seeks to require truck manufacturers activate speed limiters at the time of manufacture and possibly all trucks with engine control modules (ECUs) capable of restricting speed be activated on trucks already on the road. In both instances the agencies are proposing that the speed limiters remain activated throughout the life of the truck.

The agencies are not, however, prepared to pick the speed that the speed limiters should be set at. Throughout the rulemaking process the agencies studied speeds of 60, 65 and 68 mph – estimating the number of lives that would be saved by limiting trucks to each of the various speeds.

“The agencies estimate that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 60 mph would save 162 to 498 lives annually, limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 65 mph would save 63 to 214 lives annually, and limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 68 mph would save 27 to 96 lives annually,” agency officials state in the NPRM. “Although we believe that the 60 mph alternative would result in additional safety benefits, we are not able to quantify the 60 mph alternative with the same confidence as the 65 mph and 68 mph alternatives.”

If speed limiters were to be mandated, the agencies are proposing that in order to ensure that the speeds have not been adjusted and meet the set speed, that the speed determination be able to be read on the roadside through on-board diagnostic connections. And, not only would the reading report the current speed the truck was set at, but the feds are proposing that the truck report the previous two speed settings, along with the time and date of those speed modifications.

In 2006, the American Trucking Associations and Roadsafe America petitioned NHTSA and the FMCSA to pursue a rulemaking to mandate speed limiters on heavy trucks. The NPRM states the groups asked for a 68 mph cap on speeds. NHTSA, on its own, granted the petition in 2011 and began drafting a proposal. FMCSA rejoined NHTSA in May 2013.

The proposal has been stalled at the White House Office of Management and Budget for more than a year.

The agency does not state when the comment period will officially open for the proposal, but a 60-day comment period is planned.

“While we are in the very first stages of reviewing the agencies’ proposal, it’s about what we expected – a feel-good proposal based on shaky science that will likely detract from highway safety,” said Laura O’Neill-Kaumo, OOIDA director of government affairs.

“The arguments in support of speed limiters haven’t changed much. Neither has the science, which is in part why we didn’t see DOT pursue a rule long ago. It will be interesting to see what the justification is this time, but rest assured OOIDA is more than ready to fight this on a variety of fronts.”

[41chevy]

I'm sure the $2371.00 will be made up via less driver pay or less needed maintenance.

Wasn't there a study when CALDOT mandated areo kits, that the benefits came into play at higher than "legal" speeds?

Edited August 30, 2016 by 41chevy

[grayhair]

1 hour ago, kscarbel2 said:

Based on a questionnaire, the MBRTC report summarizes driver sentiment on the matter of speed differentials.

Two scenarios that dominated the drivers’ concerns were associated with on-ramps, according to the research.

• The first safety issue related to trucks being “trapped” in the right lane and the increased risk of continually encountering merging traffic.
• The second issue involved trucks not being able to reach traffic speed when merging into traffic flow. They also indicated a concern that lower truck speeds result in congestion and clustering of traffic and bottleneck situations on highways.

Additionally, 87% of the truck drivers responded that speed differentials, whether due to regulated speed limits or company policies, increase the risk of accidents. Truck drivers also raised the issue of unsafe maneuvers by passenger vehicle drivers in overtaking and passing much slower trucks.

The whole idea seems like gubmint overreach to me.  States should be able to set their own speed limits taking into consideration the local conditions.

That said, my biggest complaint is with discourteous truck drivers who refuse to get the hell out of the way when they have junk trucks unable to maintain speed because they are under-powered or overloaded or both.  We have a lot of junk trucks in TX heading to and from the Port of Houston.  Recently driving south on I45 from Dallas to Houston, two moron semi drivers rode next to each other for about 20 minutes effectively blocking the interstate.  Speed limit 75 but neither one seemed capable to quite make 60 mph. One was unable to get past the other and neither would give way.  Two lanes of cars were backed up behind these two idiots for about 10 miles.  When you're stuck behind these guys for nearly a half hour you wanna scream.

Edited August 30, 2016 by grayhair

[Underdog]

The whole idea seems like gubmint overreach to me.  States should be able to set their own speed limits taking into consideration the local conditions.

That said, my biggest complaint is with discourteous truck drivers who refuse to get the hell out of the way when they have junk trucks unable to maintain speed because they are under-powered or overloaded or both.  We have a lot of junk trucks in TX heading to and from the Port of Houston.  Recently driving south on I45 from Dallas to Houston, two moron semi drivers rode next to each other for about 20 minutes effectively blocking the interstate.  Speed limit 75 but neither one seemed capable to quite make 60 mph. One was unable to get past the other and neither would give way.  Two lanes of cars were backed up behind these two idiots for about 10 miles.  When you're stuck behind these guys for nearly a half hour you wanna scream.

Gonna happen a lot more with speed governed trucks.

[Underdog]

I don't necessarily agree with the fuel savings estimates, either. Depends on how the truck is spec'ed.

When I got my 2015 Volvo brand new D13 I-SHIFT, I made a conscious effort to run 62 miles per hour. Kept it up for about 6 months. 5.1 miles per gallon average. Got tired of everyone passing me and I felt as though I was clogging the road at times. Since then I sent my cruise at 65 or 66. Guess what? 5.1 MPG over the past year average.

[BillyT]

It's 1974 all over again!

[kscarbel2]

Speed limiter rule now open for comment

Fleet Owner  /  September 7, 2016

It’s official: The Dept. of Transportation’s proposed speed limiter requirement for trucks was published in the Federal Register Wednesday, opening a two-month comment period.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, being developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) would require vehicles with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds to be equipped with a speed limiting device initially set no greater than a speed to be named later—and that’s where the formal comments come in.

The agencies will evaluate input from the trucking industry, highway safety advocates, law enforcement and anyone else with an opinion whether there’s a need for such a regulation and just how fast trucks should be able to go. The proposal weighs the costs and benefits, both in accidents and in trucking operations, for hard-wired top speeds of 60, 65, and 68 mph.

For its part, NHTSA would be responsible for the vehicle portion of the regulation. The agency would establish a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) requiring that each new qualifying vehicle be equipped with a speed limiting device and the means to record the settings (including the time and date the settings were changed) through its on-board diagnostic connection.

FMCSA then would enforce the mandate, establishing a complementary Federal motor carrier safety regulation (FMCSR) to require carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce to maintain the speed limiting devices for the service life of the vehicle and to ensure they were used according to the rule.

Fleet Owner’s initial coverage of the proposal, which was announced Aug. 26, includes the DOT’s explanation of the rule, the DOT analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the three suggested speed limits, and a critical look at the research behind the rulemaking.

Comments may be filed at regulations.gov.

[kscarbel2]

ATA, OOIDA ask for more time on speed limiters

Fleet Owner  /  September 13, 2016

Trucking groups cite NPRM's complexity, 'significant' impact

The two largest trucking trade associations each have asked the Dept. of Transportation for more time to study the recently published truck speed limiter proposal, citing the rule’s complexity, changing industry dynamics, and the “significant” impact of such a regulation.

In Sept. 9 letters to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Assn. (OOIDA) made their respective cases for an extended public comment period.

“The rule, as proposed, would have a significant impact on the whole of ATA’s membership and many more industry participants,” writes ATA, which had petitioned for a speed limiter mandate 10 years ago.

The organization and its state affiliates, along with the Truckload Carriers Assn. (TCA), note that “much has changed in vehicle and motor carrier safety” over the decade. The letter points to the development and adoption of safety technologies, the greater scrutiny of carriers under the Compliance, Safety, and Accountability program, and electronic logs as examples.

“These developments, along with new state laws and speed limits, have changed the way motor carriers view and respond to safety concerns,” ATA says.

Additionally, ATA points to the proposed rule’s “dramatic departure” from the initial petition, in terms of tamper proofing protections, the lack of a retrofit requirement, and the DOT’s reluctance to specify a governed speed. ATA requests an additional 30 days “to reengage its membership” on the matter.

OOIDA, which represents small business truckers, asks for a 60-day extension of the comment period, citing the “wide range of issues” related to limiting truck speed and noting that the proposal is “based on complex research that in some instances is being used in an unconventional way.”

“This is one of the most significant NPRMs in decades as it relates to the safety of the traveling public, roadway efficiency, and the livelihood of our nation’s professional truck drivers,” OOIDA writes. “One way or another, the outcome of this NPRM will impact everyone.”

The comment period is currently scheduled to run through Nov. 7. Comments may be filed at regulations.gov.

[Marcel67]

In Europe, it was implemented and it showed that there were more dangerous situations because trucks couldn't pass each other. In Germany, they called it Jumbo racing, and caused more accidents than to prevent it.

 

[kscarbel2]

3 hours ago, Marcel67 said:

In Europe, it was implemented and it showed that there were more dangerous situations because trucks couldn't pass each other. In Germany, they called it Jumbo racing, and caused more accidents than to prevent it.

 

I'm in Germany a lot, and personally have never noticed any issues. What you will notice is the trucks have the power to maintain momentum uphill while operating more efficiently pulling longer trailers.

[Marcel67]

True but still you see drivers try to pass with 1km difference on flat road or specially on a hill. They have the power but the speed limiter prevent to pass. My family runs a trucking company out of Holland on daily routes to Swiss and see it often happening that trucks try to pass but it takes forever. That's when inpatient drivers try to pass and created dangerous situations 

[Marcel67]

[BillyT]

Every thing old is new again 😁

[kscarbel2]

Survey: Speed limiter usage widespread among fleets, ELD adoption flat despite mandate

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  September 29, 2016

More than 85 percent of fleet respondents in a recent survey equip their fleet’s trucks with speed limiters, according to a survey performed this year by the American Transportation Research Institute. The survey also showed adoption of electronic logging devices in 2015 was flat compared to 2014.

ATRI’s reported figure comes less than a month into the public comment period for a proposed rule from the U.S. DOT to require nearly all trucks in the U.S. to be equipped with speed limiting devices.

Since 2011, ATRI has asked survey respondents in its annual Operational Costs of Trucking survey to report whether they use speed limiters (aka speed governors).

This year, 85.1 percent said they utilized limiters in 2015, and 85 percent of such fleets said they use limiters on 100 percent of their fleet’s trucks. Another 7 percent, ATRI says, use speed limiters on 70 to 99 percent of their trucks.

The most common speed limit was 65 mph, ATRI notes.

Though ATRI considers use of 85.1 percent of survey respondents — who accounted for more than 107,000 power units — “consistently high,” the figure is the lowest since ATRI began asking the question of survey respondents for 2011. In 2014, speed limiter usage was nearly 92 percent. In 2011, speed limiter use was reported at 93.2 percent, and in 2012 and 2013, speed limiter usage was 86 percent and 86.8 percent, respectively.

Meanwhile, use of electronic logging devices by surveyed fleets remained flat, at 63 percent. The DOT published in December 2015 a final rule to mandate the use of electronic logging devices to keep records of duty status, which likely had little effect on the survey results, given its late-in-the-year publication.. The rule takes effect December 2017. “It is assumed that this figure (63 percent) will increase toward 100 percent as the industry responds” to the mandate’s requirements, ATRI writes.

ATRI’s Operational Costs report found that carriers’ costs fell in 2015, primarily due to cheaper fuel. Click here to read CCJ‘s coverage of the report.

 

[kscarbel2]

OOIDA to House Approps: Don't mandate speed limiters

Greg Grisolano, Land Line (OOIDA)  /  October 18, 2016

After making a similar request of the Senate, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is asking the House Appropriations committee to ditch language from an upcoming bill that would force a final rule mandating speed limiters.

The Association issued a letter on Oct. 17 to the committee’s chair, Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and ranking member Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. The letter also went to chairman of the subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., and ranking subcommittee member Rep. David Price, D-N.C.

A provision is included in Section 142 of the Senate Amendment to the FY 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, that requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule mandating speed limiters. OOIDA’s full letter can be viewed here. The Association issued a similar letter to the Senate Appropriations committee on Sept. 21.

“Professional drivers have long opposed efforts to mandate the installation of speed limiters on heavy vehicles because research indicates the technology actually reduces safety for all highway users,” OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer wrote in the letter. “Truckers across the country encourage members of Congress to oppose the inclusion of Section 142 of the Senate amendment in any final appropriations measure funding the Department of Transportation through the remainder of the fiscal year.”

OOIDA opposes a government mandate on this issue, pointing to research that contradicts the fed’s claimed “safety benefits” of speed limiters, as it would force a speed differential between heavy trucks and other vehicles using the highways. That would lead to more vehicle interactions, unsafe maneuvering and crashes, a study of speed differentials shows.

On Sept. 7, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a notice of proposed rulemaking on the speed limiter issue.

The proposal has drawn criticism from OOIDA and other groups for failing to state how the proposal would decrease crashes overall. Additionally, by the agencies’ own admission, the proposed rule would have an overwhelmingly negative benefit on small-business truckers and owner-operators. Spencer noted that approximately 93 percent of all trucks on the road are operated by small businesses, which maintain 20 or fewer vehicles.

“Forcing the agencies’ hand in issuing a mandate without fully considering these consequences would disregard the very serious threat this rule poses to the livelihood and survival of countless small-businesses, which comprise an overwhelmingly large portion of the trucking industry,” he wrote.

The proposed rulemaking that would require speed limiters be installed in every new vehicle weighing 26,000 pounds or more. A 60-day comment period on the proposal began Sept. 7. Various industry groups have raised alarm at the proposal, with OOIDA filing a formal request for an additional 60-day comment period. The American Trucking Associations is also calling for a 30-day extension on the comment period.

In the letter, Spencer notes that mandating the installation of speed limiters, as prescribed by the bill, “ignores important regulatory reform provisions” in the latest highway bill, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act.

The proposed rule argues that speed limiters will reduce the severity of large truck crashes, leading to fewer fatalities and serious injuries. However, OOIDA argues that the number of crashes would actually increase as the speed differential between large trucks and other motorists would lead to more vehicle interactions and unsafe maneuvering.

Spencer wrote that in addition to their concerns about implementing a mandate via legislation instead of through the regulatory process, independent drivers are “equally concerned about the lack of understanding surrounding this proposal and its true impact on our nation.”

“We believe enhanced congressional oversight of this issue would help elected officials and the American public better understand the real dangers associated with speed limiters, including increasedcrash rates, greater highway congestion, and the loss of vital small businesses,” he wrote.

OOIDA’s website, FightingForTruckers.com, has more information about the Association’s opposition to the mandate, as well as ways for truckers to contact their lawmakers and oppose a mandate. You can also file comments on the proposal here and here.

[kscarbel2]

Anger Over Speed Limiters Voiced in Comments to DOT

Transport Topics  /  October 17, 2016

Some motorists said they favor the idea of slowing trucks down on the highway, but the overwhelming majority of the nearly 3,000 comments filed thus far on a federal heavy-truck speed limiter proposal came from truckers calling it a recipe for disaster.

In written comments to federal regulators, truck drivers also said the proposed requirement would cut their productivity, cause “rolling road blocks,” increase instances of road rage, create an uneven economic playing field and keep them from their families longer.

The proposal, published Sept. 7 jointly by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, does not specify a speed that could be adopted in a final rule but suggests that setting limiters at 60 mph, 65 mph or 68 mph would save lives and reduce fuel use.

The comment period closes Nov. 7, but the agencies are pondering extending the deadline, according to FMCSA Administrator Scott Darling.

“I already drive a governed company truck. It is hard to try to stay out of the way of the flow of traffic,” wrote Christopher Rickbrodt of Riverview, Florida. “In the Western states, where some speed limits are as high as 85 mph, running at 65 mph is really dangerous to other drivers who can’t judge the closing rate. I hate to say it, but either slow everyone down or leave it alone.”

The proposal requires the devices eventually would need to be capable of verification by regulators or law enforcement via onboard diagnostics. It does not require that the limiters be tamper­-proof.

Earlier this month, American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear sharply criticized the proposal as “flawed,” largely because it would create differential speeds on the nation’s highways.

ATA and other large associations are expected to file comments before the deadline.
John Boyle of Marlton, New Jersey, said he owns and operates a fleet of about 40 Class 8 trucks and has been using speed limiters for more than 10 years.

“I applaud your efforts to make the roadways safer,” Boyle wrote. “However, your selective approach to enforcement is curious. Why selectively legislate speed-reducing devices for trucks but not for cars? … Why are you only looking to limit speed on trucks when your own data clearly indicated that speeding in passenger vehicles is the more significant problem?”

While there were many comments in favor of speed limiters, primarily from noncommercial motorists, most of the strong opposition came from independent operators and drivers for small companies.

Robert Jewett, of Weare, New Hampshire, a retired truck driver and current chairman of the New Hampshire Professional Drivers Association, said, “I have over 42 years of commercial driving, and from what I hear and have seen is trucks at lower speeds will be in the way of motorists, therefore causing more accidents making motorists at times take more chances.”

“If you’ve ever driven in Canada, where their trucks are limited to 65, you’ve seen how long it takes for one semi to pass another,” wrote Thomas Stoddard, who did not list his address. “You will have traffic backups for miles.”

“I have been driving CMV’s for 44 years with 4.4 million safe miles behind me,” wrote Bob Ciaccia of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. “When two or more speed-regulated trucks are trying to pass each other, you get a moving road block! This causes cars that are stuck in this road block to get impatient, and once the block is ended, the cars will speed up past the trucks sometimes cutting us off like they are upset.”

Valerie Heinonen, of New York City, who supports the speed limiter rule, said that as a noncommercial driver she often observes speeding trucks when she travels the New England Thruway and Long Island Expressway.

“Truckers, forced to speed by their customers looking for profit and cost-cutting, are at more risk when the speed limit is over 65,” Heinonen wrote. “Everyone suffers. There is no need for such high speed on public roads — people can speed at raceways!”

Marc McComb, address not listed, said truck crashes cause more damage than most car crashes simply due to the mass of trucks, and that adding speed only makes things worse.

“While the technology is available to prevent trucks from excess speed, it should be required on all trucks,” McComb wrote. “Truckers are trying to make a living by getting their loads to their destinations as quick as possible, making speeding abuse more likely. The chance of speeding should be taken out of the equation for the good and safety of everyone.”

Eric Robertson of Olympia, Kentucky, asked why aren’t cars’ speed restricted?

“A significant percentage of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles are caused by the illegal and dangerous driving of people in private, noncommercial vehicles,” Robertson wrote. “Speeding needs to be addressed in the industry, but not by governing vehicles. This will be a business killer for smaller companies and independent drivers.”

An array of safety groups including Road Safe America, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition, said they opposed the proposed rule.

“It is critical that this rule apply to all trucks on the roads, not just new trucks. Implementing a heavy-vehicle speed limiter rule that applies to all trucks equipped with the technology, including those that have it now, will enhance public safety now,” the groups wrote.