Profile For Robert B. (The Dragon) yes, I breathe fire and other sideshow tricks

I don't see many O/O pulling Amazon much because of their program and rates. I've seen more Knight, JB Hunt and US Express hooked to them lately.

See, I stopped as you asked. Then I asked for legitimate information and you respond by antagonizing. I offered up information coming from states who have conducted expert studies and made changes accordingly but yet still antagonizing. I asked for an actual study, a link to support their claim and nothing but an opinion.

Report

So it's an opinion with no statistics to back it up. Gotcha. I'm not in disagreement with the idea of driving responsibly. Heck, I rarely run over 67-68 on the big open stretches. My opposition is and has consistently been forcing a mandate with no actual data to prove a claim. The only real data out there shows that what they're trying to force is a very bad idea and completely contradicts their claim of safety improvements.

You asked and I stopped, no need to continue to badger me as you often do to anyone who opposes you. Now, can you please point me in the direction of the studies that support the push for this bill? Actual, studies and numbers since you're a numbers guy and not just personal or emotional opinion.

I'll also retract my statements in regards to the ATA. One report I read stated that they supported it and were behind it. I just read another where they're actually slamming the proposition because there is NO research to back it. The DOT has delayed it a dozen times since it was initially proposed in 2011 due to not having ANY research or studies to back the claims of the groups pushing it.

I did stop all that Brett. I went to one specific question which nobody wants to answer and has been posed by not only myself. Besides, since when is it up to opposition to prove the counter point? Several experts in a dozen states have already proven the danger of split speed limits but that's been ignored and the group pushing the legislation has provided no reports or statistics to back their claim.

I'll still go back to my original point, which goes back to Rick's original statement. They're bypassing the very organization who is responsible for maintaining safety standards in the industry. They're doing so in regards to an accident where speed was never mentioned and that push came from a non profit. All other things aside, where are their findings to prove their claim of additional safety and why are they taking another route to achieve what they couldn't get passed 2 years ago?

I wholeheartedly agree that it should be regulated state by state rather than a federal mandate placing a restriction on trucks themselves. In regards to Fullers statement, I'd love to know just where he came up with his 450-500 mile legal limit per day. If that's true, then maybe there should be a full audit of his driver's because I'm betting they incur a massive amount of fines. I think the simple argument that it's a state by state issue is more than valid in reference to your not seeing one being made given that there are so many states who have done their own research and made changes accordingly. It's much easier for a state to make changes based on their own findings vs a federal change.

Agreed Rick. My intent wasn't to start a cat fight. My question is specifically to motive and the fact of how they're pursuing it. Indiana is one of the 12 states currently looking to repeal split speed limits. A local radio host interviewed an individual with state DOT a few months ago on his program and that individual pointed to the fact that the majority of accidents are not caused by commercial drivers but rather the motoring public being impatient with forced slower vehicles and making rash decisions causing accidents. They reviewed models showing that a consistent flow of traffic reduced a significant amount of those types of accidents and pointed to the fact that the public needed to be less distracted and more patient but punishing the safer group of drivers wasn't the correct solution. Their decision found that the consistent flow would lead to safer motorways. Indiana isn't the only state to come to this same conclusion which has me asking, where are the studies the ATA is using which contradicts multiple states findings and why isn't that information being processed through the proper channels?

The other question would be, why is it that an organization currently controlled by companies which make up less than 10% of the industry are so determined to implement an industry wide standard which they cannot prove will impact safety in a positive way? This goes back two years when they pitched the idea and couldn't get the blessing of FMCSA because their findings showed an adverse effect. This time. they bypassed that and went straight to lawmakers. Rick's initial statement said it all quite simply.

Ok, simple answer. If it's about safety, why bypass the federal organization responsible for safety and go straight to the lawmakers by using lobbyists and influence? Why ignore the studies from so many states which are repealing split speed limits which show they are more dangerous? There's more to it than they're letting on.

Great list thus far.

I'll add, drivers who want to jump in the left lane and try to pass going up a hill but are in a truck that can't climb a hill.

The other aspect comes down to the original claim by the ATA, which is safety. If that were truly the case, then why are 12 states currently in the process of repealing their split speed limit laws? They're doing away with it because of safety issues and accidents caused by traffic flow being forced to run different speeds. Yet still, you have a powerful group using money to influence law who want to impose split speed limits nationally? Something doesn't pass the smell check.

If you're talking as 2 days being 48 hours of continuous driving you're close or as a team then definitely but the distance from Buffalo to LA is just under 2600 miles so for a solo driver, you're looking at 4 days of driving. The people pushing the lobbyists and putting up all the money are the members of the ATA which are mostly the mega carriers. Just as the CEO of US Express was overjoyed with the ELD mandate and commented that it would force smaller companies to close giving them more freight, I see a similar issue here. A company that doesn't have as many drivers to relay a load will be effected if forced to run a truck that can't maintain current posted speed limits. I never said the sky is falling and never have. I do have an issue with companies using lobbyists to effect laws to control competition and that's for any business. If you can't compete with service itself, you shouldn't be using money and politics to push others out of the way. I'm well aware that's how things have become but it doesn't make it right.

Sadly, this has nothing to do with safety. Follow the money, see who is behind the lobbyists bending the ear of Congress and you'll quickly figure out why they're pushing so hard.

It depends on the trailer as for how it steers. Some will be cable activated on the trailer itself, others have a remote that the driver controls and some of the larger ones will have an actual steering platform that a second operator will control for tight, low speed maneuvers. I'll have to look and see if we have any pics on the company website of the steering platform style. The one in the main photo doesn't appear to have a pivot so there isn't any additional steering mechanism aside from the jeep up front.

Wrong photo dangit. That's a crane section, not the dozer photo I was looking for but you get the idea lol.

It's a heavy haul trailer. The extra axle sections help carry the weight and also follow like doubles or triples. In this particular photo, that's a D11 dozer on the back weighing roughly 225,000#.

I would imagine a tape measure and a helper would be your best option. In the construction business, we say the person holding the end of the tape is on the "dumb end". Make sure you are on the "smart end". Center of the front axle to center of rear axle would be the wheelbase. The rest is self explanatory.

Wheelbase is actually determined by the distance from the center of the front axle to the center of the drive axles, not the center of the rear axle.

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone using 3.70 rears anymore that isn't doing heavy haul or some sort of dump, log or regional work where you're constantly in the hills. They're much too concerned with fuel costs and with your particular setup, it's definitely gonna be a dog on the hills.