Greg Rider Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Just saw an article come up on Yahoo homepage about possible new legislation that would increase weights to well over the current 80,000 lb limit. They referenced Michigan and the limit there along with adding a 6th axle with brakes. Also mentioned was an increase in length. The length would allow doubles and triples. Of course some weirdo group wants to stop it citing possible increased deaths because of small cars. Don't cut-off trucks and drive in blind spots seems like a reasonable answer! From what I've seen, young girls in red cars are the worst, followed up by yuppies (male & female) driving luxury cars and suv's. Quote #1 on A-model registryIf I drink because of work, why can't I drink at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollweevil Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Bigger is not always better. The simple fact is that the risk does increase. But more importantly, freight being moved in a 53 ft. trailer is being moved at the same basic rate as it was in the early 70's in a 42 ft. trailer. There are exceptions, but as for owner operator independent business men, we have always seemed to end up sucking hind tit. I am reminded of a shipper who once asked my friend if he would could move a load from Atlanta to La. in 24 hours. When Rob said no, he would need 36, the guy said, well put a team on it and they should have it there in 18. We can't move twice or three times the amount of freight for the same price. Depending on who is doing the reporting, there are 130,000 less trucks in operation this year. It is not hard to figure why, the only profit some were showing, was the fuel surcharge, when they could get it When you consider a failing economy, an infrastructure system in decline, and the Federal Highway Trust Fund busted by the Month of August. Bigger doesn't sound better at all. Michigan is not a real good example for over sized trucks. They have some of the worse roads in the interstate system. I do not mean to be offensive, but in these times we need to be careful what we wish for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Bigger is not always better. The simple fact is that the risk does increase. But more importantly, freight being moved in a 53 ft. trailer is being moved at the same basic rate as it was in the early 70's in a 42 ft. trailer. There are exceptions, but as for owner operator independent business men, we have always seemed to end up sucking hind tit. I am reminded of a shipper who once asked my friend if he would could move a load from Atlanta to La. in 24 hours. When Rob said no, he would need 36, the guy said, well put a team on it and they should have it there in 18. We can't move twice or three times the amount of freight for the same price. Depending on who is doing the reporting, there are 130,000 less trucks in operation this year. It is not hard to figure why, the only profit some were showing, was the fuel surcharge, when they could get it When you consider a failing economy, an infrastructure system in decline, and the Federal Highway Trust Fund busted by the Month of August. Bigger doesn't sound better at all. Michigan is not a real good example for over sized trucks. They have some of the worse roads in the interstate system. I do not mean to be offensive, but in these times we need to be careful what we wish for.Not being a trucker myself I can't actually say that I've ever seen a 53' van type trailer completely full to capacity. There is always a lot of room leftover that with careful and coordinated loading the space could be utilized. I've never pulled a 53ft trailer of any type but have several 42, and 48ft and my thought is that the 42ft is much easier to negotiate, (especially city traffic) than the 48ft. Myself I think just about as much freight could be moved with a 36' van as a 48ft van if kept regional. Several times I've seen someone pulling a 53' van in a city have to move fore and aft to jockey into position because the docks or loading/unloading areas were never designed to handle that length of trailer coupled with a long wheelbase tractor. I've had a couple cars through the shop that have had a trailer dragged over the front end also. In both of those instances, (as in so many other cases) the driver of the car was not at fault, (according to them) and readily blamed the trucking operator.I don't think longer length is the answer either.Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 The problem is not the physical size or weight of the truck. Many states already use permits to achieve longer and heavier moves. The original intent of heavy permitting is to establish that the equipment and the operator is qualified to move the load. If size and weight is increased across the board, you will see safety issues with inadequate equipment and unqualified operators. (By operator I mean driver as well as truck owner) We have drivers and companies out there now that cannot operate safely within the law. Another issue I have is with the compensation. As Mike said, we are continually asked to do more for less money. Drivers get paid by the mile don't receive any additional rate for pulling a 53' trailer vs. a 45' or 48' even though as Rob said there is inherently more work involved.I personally pull a 40' dump trailer and get paid by the ton. More weight means more money to me, but if legal limits are increased, the rate structure will adjust DOWN. I see this in NY state, where a lot of operators have permits to haul 32 ton payload on a 5-axle rig same as mine. The rates are based on your ability to haul 32 ton. Here comes ol' Underdog up from Pennsylvania, legal for only 23 ton. That leaves me a few bricks short of a full load... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I don't think longer length is the answer either.RobThat's not what SHE said...Gregg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 That's not what SHE said...GreggActually, She always says, "Quality, not Quantity". Must fit me well.Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other dog Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Not being a trucker myself I can't actually say that I've ever seen a 53' van type trailer completely full to capacity. There is always a lot of room leftover that with careful and coordinated loading the space could be utilized. I've never pulled a 53ft trailer of any type but have several 42, and 48ft and my thought is that the 42ft is much easier to negotiate, (especially city traffic) than the 48ft. Myself I think just about as much freight could be moved with a 36' van as a 48ft van if kept regional. Several times I've seen someone pulling a 53' van in a city have to move fore and aft to jockey into position because the docks or loading/unloading areas were never designed to handle that length of trailer coupled with a long wheelbase tractor. I've had a couple cars through the shop that have had a trailer dragged over the front end also. In both of those instances, (as in so many other cases) the driver of the car was not at fault, (according to them) and readily blamed the trucking operator.I don't think longer length is the answer either.RobMe neither, a lot of 2 lane roads i used to travel with a cabover pulling a 42' flat i just can't run any more, or I don't run them any more, because you can't keep everything on your side of the road when rounding some curves with a longer truck and trailer. And they aren't widening any turns in the cities, or making docks any bigger. I'm glad I pull a 48', most of our flats are 53s. I could never have made that turn in Ky. last week with a 53 footer, as I just barely made it with a 48. Quote Producer of poorly photo-chopped pictures since 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollweevil Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 in any service oriented business the premise is that you will accommodate someone else. A 53 ft primarily grew out of the needs of the Carpet Industry. They could cube a 45 or 48 but couldn't get the weight. I pulled a worn out 42'6" x 96" until I was sick of rebuilding it. At 73280 lb. and 55 ft overall, it had been an industry standard for years. I could load 20 pallets of Ice packed chicken and go anywhere. I replaced it with a new 48 x 102 and my shippers were overjoyed. Right about this time weight limits were increased to 80,000lb. Shippers could load 2 more pallets for the same price. Wow. And I could still go anywhere except Ill. and Mo.[still 73280]. If there were no LTL [less than truck load] carriers there would probably be no pup trailers, or doubles. There again they can be cubed out or overloaded, usually not. Their use is simply a matter of convenience, and can generate many times the gross revenue that a conventional trailer can. The most consistent trailer trucking that I have ever done, was with a 38ft end dump. At the time I could legally load 24 tons here in Ga., and since by this time I was well into accommodating myself, I usually loaded another 6 to 8 tons for good measure. Uniformity between all states would be a good starting point. Sadly enough it wont happen. They all want their own special exemptions and exceptions. Here is a paradox, you can assemble 10 or a 110 owner operator independent businessmen who are upset [pissed off] enough to want to do something. The problem is, they can't get together. because they are all upset about something different. The complexities of the trucking industry and it's attending regulations are overwhelming. If you think Government Motors Corporation is frightening, wait till you see Government Trucking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 in any service oriented business the premise is that you will accommodate someone else. A 53 ft primarily grew out of the needs of the Carpet Industry. They could cube a 45 or 48 but couldn't get the weight. I pulled a worn out 42'6" x 96" until I was sick of rebuilding it. At 73280 lb. and 55 ft overall, it had been an industry standard for years. I could load 20 pallets of Ice packed chicken and go anywhere. I replaced it with a new 48 x 102 and my shippers were overjoyed. Right about this time weight limits were increased to 80,000lb. Shippers could load 2 more pallets for the same price. Wow. And I could still go anywhere except Ill. and Mo.[still 73280]. If there were no LTL [less than truck load] carriers there would probably be no pup trailers, or doubles. There again they can be cubed out or overloaded, usually not. Their use is simply a matter of convenience, and can generate many times the gross revenue that a conventional trailer can. The most consistent trailer trucking that I have ever done, was with a 38ft end dump. At the time I could legally load 24 tons here in Ga., and since by this time I was well into accommodating myself, I usually loaded another 6 to 8 tons for good measure. Uniformity between all states would be a good starting point. Sadly enough it wont happen. They all want their own special exemptions and exceptions. Here is a paradox, you can assemble 10 or a 110 owner operator independent businessmen who are upset [pissed off] enough to want to do something. The problem is, they can't get together. because they are all upset about something different. The complexities of the trucking industry and it's attending regulations are overwhelming. If you think Government Motors Corporation is frightening, wait till you see Government Trucking.I remember that "gauntlet" that was IL, MO, and AR that limited trucks to 73,280. Trucker bitched, (rightfully so) a lot about it being that I was from central IL, and grew up in St. Louis. There was no real easy way around it cause the whole center of the states was blanketed. I don't know how prevelant the portables were in those days but remember a couple outfits getting busted for being overweight. Both IL, and MO just loved to write tickets and collect money and I'm sure they still do.It's not just the Fed's with the trucking that is screwed up in general. I don't think a federal agency has more resident experts without experience than the FAA. A single example is that 4.5 years ago they implemented a software package they invested 16.8 million dollars into and pulled it three weeks later because it was so full of flaws. It has not been replaced and we operate on the older systems that were in place for a decade, (literally) prior to this implementation to this day. What is so ironic is the letters that were sent to employees threatening disciplinary action if the training courses for this package were not completed prior to it's launch. The way things are done in Govt. need to change. Here is another example: The bi-annual employee attitude survey results were released on the 22nd of May and the FAA ranked 422 out of the 435 federal agencies least desirable to work at. Such a milestone to acheive. This, negative acheivement is just like the federal agency that regulates trucking. It is from implementation of policies without consulting those that must operate with it. I'm quite sure there is more involved than I'll ever know but we cannot sustain the current path and prosper. Those in political power need to learn to pay for existing programs before implementing new ones. Who do they think will pay for this "Rebuild America" program that is being implemented now? Our grandkids, that's who, and possibly their kids! If credit remains so easy to get hold of we will never climb out of our delimma, just postpone it further. Who is going to bail us out "next time"?Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Rider Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 If anybody else read the article, or you get a chance to, there were underpinnings of NAFTA. It was not directly stated but was noted that it would be easier for trucks to cross from Canada and Mexico as they have different limits than us. More questionable trucks from south of the border with non-english drivers. I do feel that it is a bunch of shit that drivers will be paid the same for longer trailers or more "legal" weight. If a driver has his tanker/haz-mat endorsement do you make the same bobtail or loaded? I would want to be paid more to haul gasoline vs pool water. Quote #1 on A-model registryIf I drink because of work, why can't I drink at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaddeusW Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Talk to those from Australia or New Zealand. Trucks down there have some strict weight laws but when it comes to length they allow upward 175 feet. Freight doesn't have to weigh a hundred tons but its mostly always bulky. B doubles and triples have proved to be very flexible and useful in Australia. Lets not rule anything out. Bigger means more efficient. Quote -Thad What America needs is less bull and more Bulldog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Bigger means more efficient.That's what scares me. More efficient for the system means some sort of price to be paid by drivers, especially owner-operators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 That's what scares me. More efficient for the system means some sort of price to be paid by drivers, especially owner-operators.Yes, they are the ones that bear the brunt of the negatives.Rob Quote Plodding along with no job nor practical application for my existence, but still trying to fix what's broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Rider Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 Efficiency means a company can pay one driver to haul two trailers instead of two trucks and two drivers. Then a person is unemployed until the business picks up enough to bring a driver back. Don't get me wrong, I owned a business and currently work for a company that is very inefficient and it is frustating because that could be my pay raise they are waisting! Quote #1 on A-model registryIf I drink because of work, why can't I drink at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollweevil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It's not just the Fed's with the trucking that is screwed up in general. I don't think a federal agency has more resident experts without experience than the FAA. A single example is that 4.5 years ago they implemented a software package they invested 16.8 million dollars into and pulled it three weeks later because it was so full of flaws. It has not been replaced and we operate on the older systems that were in place for a decade, (literally) prior to this implementation to this day. What is so ironic is the letters that were sent to employees threatening disciplinary action if the training courses for this package were not completed prior to it's launch. The way things are done in Govt. need to change. Here is another example: The bi-annual employee attitude survey results were released on the 22nd of May and the FAA ranked 422 out of the 435 federal agencies least desirable to work at. Such a milestone to acheive. This, negative acheivement is just like the federal agency that regulates trucking. It is from implementation of policies without consulting those that must operate with it. An easy fix would be to de-politicalize civilian aviation by taking it from under the purview of congress, and homeland security and giving it to the real professionals for as long as it takes to make it work. Then again I don't know if we still have a Strategic Air Command. But You could bet your bippy that software would work the first time, or someone would be on their way to Levenworth . I could never understand why thata flight control tech could say that his job gave him the red ass, and you would have to send him home and pay him for the rest of his life.I always had to just keep working. To be honest, I never would have thought of Noxema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollweevil Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Rob, I messed up trying to quote your post, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.