Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New transportation bill creates safety concerns overbigger rigs [message #158997 is a reply to message #158995] |
Thu, 02 February 2012 17:24   |
Greg and April
Messages: 263
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm inclined to agree on the safety issue - trains belong on RR tracks, not
public highways.
.
Greg H.
I don't just march to the beat of my own drum - I have an entire brass band
to keep me company.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch" <Yowzax3@harbornet.com>
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 16:19
Subject: [GMCnet] New transportation bill creates safety concerns overbigger
rigs
>
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/01/travel/big-trucks/?hpt=tr_c2
> Republicans in the House are proposing increasing Federal truck weight
> limits to 97K lbs, and in some cases 126K lbs, and multiples can be ten
> feet longer.
> This is not a political subject in my mind. This is a straight up highway
> safety issue.
> --
> Mitch
> Tacoma, Wa.
> '80 Spitfire
> '03 Windstar
> X(very)'76 PB 26 "The Beast"
> Where it rains, always.
>
> It's wet, No sun, Gray.
> Go to Oregon.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs [message #159012 is a reply to message #158995] |
Thu, 02 February 2012 19:07 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have no problem with this as long as there is a reduced speed limit and axle weight on them.
Michigan already allows up to 164,000 pound trucks with a speed limit of 55 mph. I believe the maximum weight per axle is also reduced to 13,000 pounds. I would have to look it up for sure.
In Indiana we also allow this on a few selected highways for trucks to haul steel from NW Indiana to Michigan.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs [message #159059 is a reply to message #159043] |
Fri, 03 February 2012 00:01 |
Mitch
Messages: 272
Registered: May 2009
Location: Tacoma, Wa
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
How is it a safety issue?
Most drivers under most circumstance will be driving safely. No argument. But under unusual circumstance you are talking about a rig that is almost 20% heavier, that requires more time, distance to slow down, or to speed up.
I've done enough highway driving to see truckers with their hands full in winds and rain with the rigs out there now. And I've driven enough big stuff to know there are a lot of idiots out there that will take serious chances around big trucks.
I'm not talking against the truck drivers. They're just trying to make a living. But many of the big trucking companies will push the legal limits on loads, hours and equipment condition.
You're just as dead if it's 80,000 lbs or 94,000lbs rolling over you, but I'd like to think the driver behind me has 16,000lbs less to stop.
You may be the worlds best throttle jock, and I know I have the reflexes of a cat, but do we have to make the highways that much more dangerous so a shipper doesn't have to pay one more driver?
Mitch
Tacoma, Wa.
'80 Spitfire
'03 Windstar
'77 Jaguar XJ6-C
X(very)'76 PB 26 "The Beast"
Where it rains, always.
It's wet, No sun, Gray.
Go to Oregon.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs [message #159063 is a reply to message #159012] |
Fri, 03 February 2012 01:09 |
mickeysss
Messages: 1476
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
in australia down under this is a pick up truck from listening to the truck drivers that run over big reds down there. they have 3 wagons on the back
that look like ship containers on wheels. a big red is a kangaroo. I have had truck drivers on my airport shuttle that told me that. they were
drivers. road warriors like mel gibson movie. I here they have big trains down there. They don't see any humans for 3 days at a time on some of
those roads so no one to hurt. the bigger the harder to stop. The big buses are really the ones to watch. they drive them like skate boards
80 miles an hour and they can't stop. do not ever pass a big truck or bus, get behind and wait for better days. If you blow an A frame ball joint
or just a good flat with wind, you do not want to be in front of them - most of all a gas truck we have had 3 of these blow up in the last 3 years
by disneyland area. let the big ones always go in front, wait for better days and when it rains never go over 50 or so, let the rich people pass you and see their wheels spinning in the air latter. I have learned to drive like a grandmother on red bull. watch the angle of ever ones front tires. Where they
go their ass will follow. my .) 21/2 cent rant. life and death is at that wheel every second, i was hit head on 2 years ago from a kid that front wheels
hit gravel with front wheel drive. because one side stopped spinning in gravel and the other hit concrete his steering slammed left out of his hands
and pulled head on into me. I was lucky he did not cut me in half. i am off subject sorry, but driving is more important than any thing with the GMC.
always drive in the middle so the accident can go on either side of you to go around you. This has saved me many times and they hit someone else.
use the shoulder to stop if you see a rear ending coming. You all know it all, but keep thinking about risk and the odds of what you do. A lot of drivers are hired now much younger and not as safe a driver. they are on a skate board with 164,000 pounds. especially container trucks now. stay out of the front of them, they stay on your tail and scare you off the road around here. Do not be in front of weight stay behind and draft as far back as possible = someone stop me please i can't stop typing. screeeech@~~!
On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Ken Burton wrote:
>
>
> I have no problem with this as long as there is a reduced speed limit and axle weight on them.
>
> Michigan already allows up to 164,000 pound trucks with a speed limit of 55 mph. I believe the maximum weight per axle is also reduced to 13,000 pounds. I would have to look it up for sure.
>
> In Indiana we also allow this on a few selected highways for trucks to haul steel from NW Indiana to Michigan.
> --
> Ken Burton - N9KB
> 76 Palm Beach
> Hebron, Indiana
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs [message #159064 is a reply to message #159019] |
Fri, 03 February 2012 01:13 |
mickeysss
Messages: 1476
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i just saw this video, this is what i was told about by some of my riders to disneyland and their families. I'm not all crazzy see.
On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Bruce Hart wrote:
> Look what is out Rob M's way
>
> http://videos2view.net/xM-WLT.htm
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Mark Grueninger <markgrue@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> When I hauled hay in Nevada, I pulled triple trailers. We were licensed
>> for up to 130,000 lbs and 120 ft long. The only incindent I had was when a
>> car ran into the back of me in a construction area. I dont think it would
>> have made any difference how many trailers I had. Axle weight was limited
>> by tire and axle limits well short of the 20,000 lbs limited by the state.
>>
>> Mark
>> --
>> Mark Grueninger 76 Palm Beach
>> Valmeyer IL
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Hart
> GMC Wannabe
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs [message #159073 is a reply to message #159064] |
Fri, 03 February 2012 07:56 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Currently we have massive issues with our infrastructure in this country. As it continues to age, and we don't devote the necessary resources to keep it in good repair, adding larger loads, heavier trucks, faster speeds, and more traffic, will take a greater and greater toll.
I remember watching the horrific images of the interstate bridge in Minnesota collapse. I cross my fingers and pray for the best when my parents or my sister tell me they are crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge in NY.
Larger loads will only increase the stress that this infrastructure endures on a regular basis.
Engineers can have better input, but one look at this report will give you a good idea of what we face going forward with our aging highway system:
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/roads
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] New transportation bill creates safety concerns over bigger rigs [message #159075 is a reply to message #159073] |
Fri, 03 February 2012 08:15 |
mickeysss
Messages: 1476
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
those are amazing videos of trucks and moving designs.
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:56 AM, Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> Currently we have massive issues with our infrastructure in this country. As it continues to age, and we don't devote the necessary resources to keep it in good repair, adding larger loads, heavier trucks, faster speeds, and more traffic, will take a greater and greater toll.
>
> I remember watching the horrific images of the interstate bridge in Minnesota collapse. I cross my fingers and pray for the best when my parents or my sister tell me they are crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge in NY.
>
> Larger loads will only increase the stress that this infrastructure endures on a regular basis.
>
> Engineers can have better input, but one look at this report will give you a good idea of what we face going forward with our aging highway system:
>
> http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/roads
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Knezek
> 1976 Glenbrook
> Birmingham, AL
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Oct 15 09:29:47 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01127 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
