AARoads Forum

Two US senators have proposed a bill that would require all new trucks to have electronic speed limiters installed and set for 65 mph. It would also require existing trucks with this technology to activate it. The bill’s sponsors say this will save 63 to 214 lives per year.

Link to ABC News article (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/senators-offer-bill-limit-heavy-truck-speeds-65-64025215)

In my opinion, this isn’t a good idea. A law like this creates a large speed differential between trucks and cars, which tends to cause crashes, especially in western states which have 75 or 80 mph limits otherwise.

Quote from: US 89 on June 28, 2019, 08:30:25 PM
Two US senators have proposed a bill that would require all new trucks to have electronic speed limiters installed and set for 65 mph. It would also require existing trucks with this technology to activate it. The bill's sponsors say this will save 63 to 214 lives per year.

Link to ABC News article (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/senators-offer-bill-limit-heavy-truck-speeds-65-64025215)

In my opinion, this isn't a good idea. A law like this creates a large speed differential between trucks and cars, which tends to cause crashes, especially in western states which have 75 or 80 mph limits otherwise.

I agree, it's a bad idea. It might work in the east and especially Northeast, but where speed limits are 75 or 80 and it will create rapid closing rates, it will be problematic.

If this is brought in, they will need to ban trucks from the left lane on all high-speed freeways where there aren't clearance issues and enforce "keep right except to pass" rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKCqkgcR4G8

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 28, 2019, 08:43:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on June 28, 2019, 08:30:25 PM
Two US senators have proposed a bill that would require all new trucks to have electronic speed limiters installed and set for 65 mph. It would also require existing trucks with this technology to activate it. The bill’s sponsors say this will save 63 to 214 lives per year.

Link to ABC News article (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/senators-offer-bill-limit-heavy-truck-speeds-65-64025215)

In my opinion, this isn’t a good idea. A law like this creates a large speed differential between trucks and cars, which tends to cause crashes, especially in western states which have 75 or 80 mph limits otherwise.

I agree, it's a bad idea. It might work in the east and especially Northeast...

You haven't seen how fast trucks go in the Northeast, have you??!! lol

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2019, 09:26:26 PM

Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 28, 2019, 08:43:53 PM

Quote from: US 89 on June 28, 2019, 08:30:25 PM
Two US senators have proposed a bill that would require all new trucks to have electronic speed limiters installed and set for 65 mph. It would also require existing trucks with this technology to activate it. The bill's sponsors say this will save 63 to 214 lives per year.

Link to ABC News article (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/senators-offer-bill-limit-heavy-truck-speeds-65-64025215)

In my opinion, this isn't a good idea. A law like this creates a large speed differential between trucks and cars, which tends to cause crashes, especially in western states which have 75 or 80 mph limits otherwise.

I agree, it's a bad idea. It might work in the east and especially Northeast...

You haven't seen how fast trucks go in the Northeast, have you??!! lol

I'm thinking since the speed limits are generally 65 there, although even then it may not work well.

I can see it now:  a truck with a lighter load doing the max 64.8-65.2 (given tolerance of electronic components) attempting to pass a heavier-laden truck doing 64.5-64.7.  Rolling blockade as a regular rural freeway feature, here we come!  I've seen enough of this sort of shit occurring on I-5 and CA 99 in the Valley and pretty much all the desert Interstate corridors from 8 north to 15 without adding speed governors to the mix.  Let's hope common sense prevails and this gets voted down in a NY minute!  :ded:

At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically.

They're about 80% of the way to where they need to be to allow autonomous vehicles to become widespread.

The challenge is that the remaining 20% isn't quite so simple.

We're at a point where we will start to see more autonomous vehicles in conditions that can generally be trusted to be relatively "easy", and human-operated vehicles gain more autonomous functions.  But the latest auto and insurance industry projections I've seen suggest it's still another 30 years or so before half the private vehicles on the road are capable of full autonomy.

Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2019, 01:17:44 AM
I can see it now:  a truck with a lighter load doing the max 64.8-65.2 (given tolerance of electronic components) attempting to pass a heavier-laden truck doing 64.5-64.7.  Rolling blockade as a regular rural freeway feature, here we come!  I've seen enough of this sort of shit occurring on I-5 and CA 99 in the Valley and pretty much all the desert Interstate corridors from 8 north to 15 without adding speed governors to the mix.  Let's hope common sense prevails and this gets voted down in a NY minute!  :ded:

Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

If they don't, and an autonomous truck rolling blockade develops, will the cops be able to safely pull over the one(s) causing the clog so faster traffic can pass?

In general, how close are autonomous vehicles to being able to respond to police/flagger direction, such as for signal outages, or construction zones with alternating one-way traffic?

Some states (Virginia comes to mind since that's where I grew up and still live) have specifically eliminated split speed limits that used to be in effect because they found that any safety benefit from keeping the heavy vehicles' momentum down was offset negatively by other problems caused by things like speed variance, increased lane changing and aggressive driving, etc. When Virginia first started posting NMSL-authorized 65-mph speed limits in 1988 or 1989, both trucks and buses were limited to 55 (and there was a separate sign underneath saying so). Later they eliminated the bus limit and whited-out "buses"  on the signs, and then a while later they also eliminated the truck limit.

It seems to me most states' DOTs have a sense for where trucks legitimately need particular restrictions, though certainly some states (mountain ones, especially) are better at this than others. I'm thinking of this past Tuesday when we drove south through Pennsylvania and a couple of roads had the mandatory truck brake stops followed by descents posted with 20-mph truck speed limits.

Who the fuck came up with this dumbass, shitty idea!?!

My answer to these assholes:

Quote from: jeffandnicoleYou haven't seen how fast trucks go in the Northeast, have you??!! lol

Not all of the Northeast.  It's not common to see trucks over 70 in New England, especially northern New England.

Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2019, 01:17:44 AM
I can see it now:  a truck with a lighter load doing the max 64.8-65.2 (given tolerance of electronic components) attempting to pass a heavier-laden truck doing 64.5-64.7.  Rolling blockade as a regular rural freeway feature, here we come!  I've seen enough of this sort of shit occurring on I-5 and CA 99 in the Valley and pretty much all the desert Interstate corridors from 8 north to 15 without adding speed governors to the mix.  Let's hope common sense prevails and this gets voted down in a NY minute!  :ded:

In order for a blockade to occur, a trucker would need to purposely speed up or slow down slightly in order to allow another truck to get side-by-side, and then they would need to change their speed again to match the other vehicle.   In all but very rare circumstances, this is done purposely.  All it takes is for one trucker to slow down a moment, even by 1 or 2 mph, to allow the other to pass.

So, if truckers had automatic speed control, in all but the most unlikely of circumstances, they wouldn't be able to simply get to the side of each other, unless they purposely overrid the controls to slow down slightly to await another truck passing by.

Quote from: oscar on June 29, 2019, 05:00:13 AM
If they don't, and an autonomous truck rolling blockade develops, will the cops be able to safely pull over the one(s) causing the clog so faster traffic can pass?

It's tough.  If there's a blockade, the cops will need to speed along the shoulder or slowly weave their way thru traffic.  Or, they could get out in front of the trucks via a median U-turn area, and drive slower in one of the lanes to force one of the trucks to slow down.

I think it's a good idea and would make training and truck manufacturing more straightforward.

Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2019, 01:17:44 AM
I can see it now:  a truck with a lighter load doing the max 64.8-65.2 (given tolerance of electronic components) attempting to pass a heavier-laden truck doing 64.5-64.7.  Rolling blockade as a regular rural freeway feature, here we come!  I've seen enough of this sort of shit occurring on I-5 and CA 99 in the Valley and pretty much all the desert Interstate corridors from 8 north to 15 without adding speed governors to the mix.  Let's hope common sense prevails and this gets voted down in a NY minute!  :ded:

Worse, I-10 west of AZ 85 to CA 86...those can be some hellish truck blockade corridors as.  CA 43 and CA 58 might just get that much more appealing for me over 99 out of Fresno when the Centennial Corridors open if the truck limit happens. 

I have mixed feelings. Out west, limiting trucks to 65 is almost certainly a bad idea, but here in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow. I don't understand the disdain for large speed differentials. The lower the speed differential, the worse the traffic flow is. See: the Thruway. When trucks start passing, backlogs form in seconds and are often several miles long by the time they're done.

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AM
I have mixed feelings. Out west, limiting trucks to 65 is almost certainly a bad idea, but here in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow. I don't understand the disdain for large speed differentials. The lower the speed differential, the worse the traffic flow is. See: the Thruway. When trucks start passing, backlogs form in seconds and are often several miles long by the time they're done.

Its not speed differentials...it's speed LIMIT differentials that cause the issue.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2019, 12:07:37 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AM
I have mixed feelings. Out west, limiting trucks to 65 is almost certainly a bad idea, but here in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow. I don't understand the disdain for large speed differentials. The lower the speed differential, the worse the traffic flow is. See: the Thruway. When trucks start passing, backlogs form in seconds and are often several miles long by the time they're done.

Its not speed differentials...it's speed LIMIT differentials that cause the issue.

I'd be remiss to mention that the truck speed limit in California is usually 55 MPH on limited access roads...granted it is almost universally ignored. 

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AMhere in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow

They already do that, at least where I live. MA state law says that trucks must stay in the right two lanes (not counting the breakdown lane when it is open), and truck drivers always follow that specific law.

Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

That video isn't of a self-driving truck, there was a guy in a control room remotely driving it.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2019, 10:06:58 AM

Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2019, 01:17:44 AM
I can see it now:  a truck with a lighter load doing the max 64.8-65.2 (given tolerance of electronic components) attempting to pass a heavier-laden truck doing 64.5-64.7.  Rolling blockade as a regular rural freeway feature, here we come!  I've seen enough of this sort of shit occurring on I-5 and CA 99 in the Valley and pretty much all the desert Interstate corridors from 8 north to 15 without adding speed governors to the mix.  Let's hope common sense prevails and this gets voted down in a NY minute!  :ded:

In order for a blockade to occur, a trucker would need to purposely speed up or slow down slightly in order to allow another truck to get side-by-side, and then they would need to change their speed again to match the other vehicle.   In all but very rare circumstances, this is done purposely.  All it takes is for one trucker to slow down a moment, even by 1 or 2 mph, to allow the other to pass.

So, if truckers had automatic speed control, in all but the most unlikely of circumstances, they wouldn't be able to simply get to the side of each other, unless they purposely overrid the controls to slow down slightly to await another truck passing by.

Quote from: oscar on June 29, 2019, 05:00:13 AM
If they don't, and an autonomous truck rolling blockade develops, will the cops be able to safely pull over the one(s) causing the clog so faster traffic can pass?

It's tough.  If there's a blockade, the cops will need to speed along the shoulder or slowly weave their way thru traffic.  Or, they could get out in front of the trucks via a median U-turn area, and drive slower in one of the lanes to force one of the trucks to slow down.

One vehicle's 65 isn't necessarily the same as another's.  I remember there used to be a radar "your speed" sign on a road near where my parents live.  In my previous car, if I was going 35, it would show as 33.  In my current car, it would show 35 when I was going 35.

Here in Michigan the traffic on the Interstate's generally moves about 80 mph as it is and many people go above 80 mph to limit the truck traffic to only 65 is going to cause several problems, it's frustrating to be on a highway like I-94 which is two lanes in each direction between Ann Arbor and Benton Harbor and have a truck in the left lane doing 65 mph passing a truck in the right lane doing 64 mph. All the traffic behind the two trucks has to slow down to that speed which is ridiculous so this whole thing is ridiculous and I hope it doesn't pass.

Quote from: debragga on June 29, 2019, 08:53:10 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

That video isn't of a self-driving truck, there was a guy in a control room remotely driving it.

self driving truck augmented by remote control is a pretty good system. achieves many benefits of SDVs without needing 100% self driving technology.

Quote from: debragga on June 29, 2019, 08:53:10 PM
That video isn't of a self-driving truck, there was a guy in a control room remotely driving it.

Good point. I misinterpreted the description.

Here's another video:

https://youtu.be/fnRz0JENL1Q

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 29, 2019, 02:22:25 AM
We're at a point where we will start to see more autonomous vehicles in conditions that can generally be trusted to be relatively "easy", and human-operated vehicles gain more autonomous functions.  But the latest auto and insurance industry projections I've seen suggest it's still another 30 years or so before half the private vehicles on the road are capable of full autonomy.

I dunno how much I would trust any insurance industry projections. They benefit from human drivers, who have to pay huge sums for their policies. Robotic cars likely won't need such extensive insurance coverage, assuming they become widespread and normal.

Auto industry? Maybe so, since they're the ones building the cars. But their market is often people who not only drive because they have to, but drive because they like to drive. The last thing many of their customers would want to here, is that their next purchase is going to do most of the driving on its own.

Obviously some of you haven't been to Europe. Here all trucks are limited to 56 mph due to EU mandate (that weird number is due to the mandate being in km/h, and in that unit it is a round number: 90), and many countries have a 50 mph truck speed limit. The exception is the UK, where lorries (as they call trucks) theoretically could do 60, but they are capped to 56 due to the aforementioned mandate.

And anyway, aren't company trucks in the US already limited? At least Big Rig Steve's truck is capped at 65.

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 30, 2019, 07:30:49 AM
And anyway, aren't company trucks in the US already limited? At least Big Rig Steve's truck is capped at 65.

Don't know about the rest of the country, but the big rigs I saw last week on I-10 in west Texas were keeping up with the 80mph speed limit. If they had speed governors, they were adjusted, as the proposed legislation would not allow, for the higher speed limits out West.

The article cited upthread noted a proposed nationwide truck speed limit set by Federal regulation has stalled in the last three Presidential administrations. Not often they all agree on anything. The bill sponsors should take the hint.

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 30, 2019, 07:30:49 AM
And anyway, aren't company trucks in the US already limited? At least Big Rig Steve's truck is capped at 65.

There are some companies that may govern their company's trucks, but it's a decision made by the company. It wouldn't make much sense to govern a vehicle to 65 mph in a state that allows 70, so maybe they're governed to the speed limit of the state that the trucks most often drive in, or they're attempting to save on gas. Also, this doesn't apply solely to trucks, but vehicles as well. One company I see on the roads have a sticker stating their vans are limited to 70 mph.

Most over-the-road truckers aren't speed governed.

Quote from: oscar on June 30, 2019, 07:50:22 AM
The article cited upthread noted a proposed nationwide truck speed limit set by Federal regulation has stalled in the last three Presidential administrations. Not often they all agree on anything. The bill sponsors should take the hint.

Many bills are written in such a way where if they aren't passed, they automatically are reintroduced in the next session as long as the main sponsor is still in office. Many bills aren't even noticed for many years, and just languish hoping for some attention. This one is no different.

Quote from: oscar on June 30, 2019, 07:50:22 AM

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 30, 2019, 07:30:49 AM
And anyway, aren't company trucks in the US already limited? At least Big Rig Steve's truck is capped at 65.

Don't know about the rest of the country, but the big rigs I saw last week on I-10 in west Texas were keeping up with the 80mph speed limit. If they had speed governors, they were adjusted, as the proposed legislation would not allow, for the higher speed limits out West.

The article cited upthread noted a proposed nationwide truck speed limit set by Federal regulation has stalled in the last three Presidential administrations. Not often they all agree on anything. The bill sponsors should take the hint.

Yet they won't - cause the bonus $$$ they get from lobbyists pretty much seal the need to sponsor it.

Quote from: 1 on June 29, 2019, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AMhere in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow

They already do that, at least where I live. MA state law says that trucks must stay in the right two lanes (not counting the breakdown lane when it is open), and truck drivers always follow that specific law.

Always? Oh I need to get you out on 95/128 during rush hour more...

Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2019, 11:10:11 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 29, 2019, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AMhere in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow

They already do that, at least where I live. MA state law says that trucks must stay in the right two lanes (not counting the breakdown lane when it is open), and truck drivers always follow that specific law.

Always? Oh I need to get you out on 95/128 during rush hour more...

WA has the same law (no trucks in #1 lane when there are 3+ lanes), and it's followed exceptionally well. Are you saying that it's ignored in Mass?

Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2019, 11:10:11 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 29, 2019, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AMhere in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow

They already do that, at least where I live. MA state law says that trucks must stay in the right two lanes (not counting the breakdown lane when it is open), and truck drivers always follow that specific law.

Always? Oh I need to get you out on 95/128 during rush hour more...

From my experience, truckers would rather tailgate on the 2nd right lane than pass. Trucks illegally taking the left lane(s) are pretty rare.

Quote from: oscar on June 30, 2019, 07:50:22 AM

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 30, 2019, 07:30:49 AM
And anyway, aren't company trucks in the US already limited? At least Big Rig Steve's truck is capped at 65.

Don't know about the rest of the country, but the big rigs I saw last week on I-10 in west Texas were keeping up with the 80mph speed limit. If they had speed governors, they were adjusted, as the proposed legislation would not allow, for the higher speed limits out West.

The article cited upthread noted a proposed nationwide truck speed limit set by Federal regulation has stalled in the last three Presidential administrations. Not often they all agree on anything. The bill sponsors should take the hint.

On the Pennsylvania Turnpike a couple of weeks ago, I saw empty trucks running in the 75-80 range

I was on I-10 last summer in Louisiana, I recall one port container truck easily maintaining 80 mph with all the other traffic, in a 70 mph zone.

I'm opposed to a governed speed limit. Trucks should be able to drive as fast as cars can, if it's possible. If it's a straightaway with a 70 mph speed limit, let the truck run 70 - 75 mph with everybody else.

Now, if a governed speed limit was set at 75 mph to prevent excessive speed, I could understand that more. Most truck tires aren't designed to exceed 75 mph, and governing trucks at that speed would be reasonable. 65 mph is unreasonable slow, especially on 70 - 75 mph freeways that can easily that speed on a big rig.

Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2019, 11:10:11 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 29, 2019, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AMhere in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow

They already do that, at least where I live. MA state law says that trucks must stay in the right two lanes (not counting the breakdown lane when it is open), and truck drivers always follow that specific law.

Always? Oh I need to get you out on 95/128 during rush hour more...

I'm referring more to cases like the Thruway where there is just two lanes. Or really any case where the trucks can legally use all lanes and thus block other traffic from passing. Short of widening most freeways east of the Mississippi to six lanes, less trucks passing each other seems like a step in the right direction.

Or you could end up with a truck going 65 passing a truck going 64.5.

I'd be curious to see comments regarding how well it works in Ontario/Québec.  Both jurisdictions already require truck speed limiters.  Both jurisdictions also have absurdly low freeway speed limits - to the point where there wouldn't be a speed differential if everyone obeyed the speed limit.

Quote from: yand on June 30, 2019, 04:19:54 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2019, 11:10:11 AM

Quote from: 1 on June 29, 2019, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2019, 11:55:28 AMhere in the Northeast, keeping the trucks out of the left lane(s) seems like it would help traffic flow

They already do that, at least where I live. MA state law says that trucks must stay in the right two lanes (not counting the breakdown lane when it is open), and truck drivers always follow that specific law.

Always? Oh I need to get you out on 95/128 during rush hour more...

From my experience, truckers would rather tailgate on the 2nd right lane than pass. Trucks illegally taking the left lane(s) are pretty rare.

Then you need to visit Chicagoland.  Trucks are restricted to the right 2 lanes, but can be found all over the road, including the left lane from time-to-time.

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 12:59:09 PM
Or you could end up with a truck going 65 passing a truck going 64.5.

So then it is a question of whether the trade-off is worth it. Would you rather fewer trucks passing each other, but generally at a slower rate, or more trucks passing, at varying speed differentials?

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 12:59:09 PM
I'd be curious to see comments regarding how well it works in Ontario/Québec.  Both jurisdictions already require truck speed limiters.  Both jurisdictions also have absurdly low freeway speed limits - to the point where there wouldn't be a speed differential if everyone obeyed the speed limit.

Interesting you say that, as I have definitely heard comments from friends in Ontario that ON 401 between Toronto (technically Cobourg) and Kingston is terrible due to trucks passing at low speed differentials thanks to the speed limiters. Many of Ontario's rural freeways (401 from London to Toronto, QEW from Niagara to Toronto, 400 from Barrie to Toronto, etc.) are six lanes, so no issues there.
And west of London, inbound/outbound truck traffic is split between the Windsor (401) and Sarnia (402) border crossings, so it makes sense that the biggest issues develop east of Toronto. Same with QEW south of the falls with a good number of the trucks splitting off at Lewiston.

I've never had any problems with trucks on ON 403; it feels like the Thruway, but with about a quarter of the truck traffic. I can't speak for Quebec, but obviously they don't have the GTA-level of truck volumes to deal with.

Something none of you have considered regarding trucks, regulators, and truck speed:  fuel economy.  According to fleetowner.com (https://www.fleetowner.com/fuel_economy/fuel-economy-0701), a truck traveling at 75 mph consumes 27% more fuel than one going 65 mph..  That's a huge difference, and is one big reason why most fleet vehicles have regulators and the industry as a whole supports regulators.

I remember when Ohio had a split speed limit. It was pretty terrible, especially on 4-lane interstates. What it did was create a caste system where the left lane was the rocket lane with drivers doing 80+ (this was when the car speed limit was 65 rather than the 70 it is today) and the right lane was stuck doing 50 or even less under the 55 mph truck limit. Older people and other slower vehicles made the semis drop below the speed limit in the right lane where the semis were permanently trapped since they couldn't accelerate quickly enough out of the right lane to do anything with traffic doing 80 in the other. Also, if you didn't want to go 80+, too bad, into the right lane with you where were forced to go 49.

Quote from: webny99 on July 01, 2019, 03:59:00 PM

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 12:59:09 PM
Or you could end up with a truck going 65 passing a truck going 64.5.

So then it is a question of whether the trade-off is worth it. Would you rather fewer trucks passing each other, but generally at a slower rate, or more trucks passing, at varying speed differentials?

Given that, as I mentioned, not all speedometers are created equal, as well as the effects of engine power, hills (even minor changes in elevation that we wouldn't even notice in a car can cause issues), loading, etc. it's likely that speed limiters wouldn't actually produce a uniform speed among trucks.  And, of course, truck drivers don't care how many cars they hold up when micropassing another truck.

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 08:25:47 PM
And, of course, truck drivers don't care how many cars they hold up when micropassing another truck.

I tend to disagree. Trucks are usually a lot more cognizant than cars in this regard. If they've committed to pass they usually just get on with it and then get back over, unlike the many cars that hang out on the left long after they've finished passing.

Quote from: jakeroot on June 30, 2019, 01:15:49 AM

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 29, 2019, 02:22:25 AM
We're at a point where we will start to see more autonomous vehicles in conditions that can generally be trusted to be relatively "easy", and human-operated vehicles gain more autonomous functions.  But the latest auto and insurance industry projections I've seen suggest it's still another 30 years or so before half the private vehicles on the road are capable of full autonomy.

I dunno how much I would trust any insurance industry projections. They benefit from human drivers, who have to pay huge sums for their policies. Robotic cars likely won't need such extensive insurance coverage, assuming they become widespread and normal.

You're partially right in that you're thinking of personal auto insurance protections.  They generally make money for the insurers.  The opposite is generally true for the commercial (business) auto with today's market.  It is a HUGE money loser for insurers partially because commercial truck driver demand is so great.  A company won't make money if it can't get its goods to market, so they will find a driver no matter the quality.  Horrific accidents ensue as many of these folks distract themselves with everything but driving the truck.  As the economy booms, this trend gets worse.
It is the other commercial coverages which generally are bought with business auto that make the industry its profits.  If there were self driving truck fleets out there, I believe the insurance industry would be thrilled.
My apologies to the quality commercial drivers out there, keep up the good work.

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 11:12:23 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 08:25:47 PM
And, of course, truck drivers don't care how many cars they hold up when micropassing another truck.

I tend to disagree. Trucks are usually a lot more cognizant than cars in this regard. If they've committed to pass they usually just get on with it and then get back over, unlike the many cars that hang out on the left long after they've finished passing.

Clearly, you’ve never been stuck behind a truck going 62.1 mph passing a truck going 61.9 mph. It eats away at the soul.

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 11:12:23 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 08:25:47 PM
And, of course, truck drivers don't care how many cars they hold up when micropassing another truck.

I tend to disagree. Trucks are usually a lot more cognizant than cars in this regard. If they've committed to pass they usually just get on with it and then get back over, unlike the many cars that hang out on the left long after they've finished passing.

It's one thing when the car hangs out in the left lane, and you can pass him on the right.

When you have a truck passing at 63.850 mph in the left lane, and a truck in the right lane going 63.851 mph in the right lane, and the speed limit is 70-80 mph, it backs traffic up for miles, and creates recurring backups and slow downs behind the truck as traffic piles up.

Quote from: US 89 on July 02, 2019, 02:32:22 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 11:12:23 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 01, 2019, 08:25:47 PM
And, of course, truck drivers don't care how many cars they hold up when micropassing another truck.

I tend to disagree. Trucks are usually a lot more cognizant than cars in this regard. If they've committed to pass they usually just get on with it and then get back over, unlike the many cars that hang out on the left long after they've finished passing.

Clearly, you've never been stuck behind a truck going 62.1 mph passing a truck going 61.9 mph. It eats away at the soul.

I certainly have, many times. But the confidence that they'll do it and get over when they're done makes it much more bearable than a car doing the same thing.

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 08:48:48 PM
I certainly have, many times. But the confidence that they'll do it and get over when they're done makes it much more bearable than a car doing the same thing.

Even if it takes much, much longer and you can't see anything around them?  Especially if it goes on for miles if the truck is actually passing 3 trucks and a RV?  Even if the car stays in the left lane (the majority of people do move over eventually, though maybe not if there's another car nearby that they're gonna pass), they can still be passed on the right.

I'm not saying I like waiting for trucks to pass. But the greatest joy is when they're done and traffic can flow freely and the backlog clears up. That joy doesn't happen when it comes to left lane hogs, because they carry the backlog with them; it never goes away. And the ire of having to pass on the right dissipates any sanity preserved from the other factors.

Quote from: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 09:07:37 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 08:48:48 PM
I certainly have, many times. But the confidence that they'll do it and get over when they're done makes it much more bearable than a car doing the same thing.

Even if it takes much, much longer and you can't see anything around them?  Especially if it goes on for miles if the truck is actually passing 3 trucks and a RV?  Even if the car stays in the left lane (the majority of people do move over eventually, though maybe not if there's another car nearby that they're gonna pass), they can still be passed on the right.

I was going up I-64 in Virginia to Richmond last weekend, and their was 4 trucks, 3 cars and 2 vehicles with a boat all doing about 60 mph in the right lane, and a truck in the left lane passing all 9 vehicles at 60.5 mph, in a 70 mph zone. Stuck behind it for about 15 minutes or about 20 miles. Traffic was piled up, and nobody could go around. I wish that truck would have gotten a ticket.

There's only a 30 mile stretch that actually gets up to 70 mph, and that truck ruined the entire thing  :banghead:

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 09:29:17 PM
I'm not saying I like waiting for trucks to pass. But the greatest joy is when they're done and traffic can flow freely and the backlog clears up. That joy doesn't happen when it comes to left lane hogs, because they carry the backlog with them; it never goes away. And the ire of having to pass on the right dissipates any sanity preserved from the other factors.

See my example above. It was not fun judging by the fact most of the 70 mph zone was stuck behind a truck doing 60.5 mph and having no place to get around it. And when it finally did move over, by the time the huge traffic load backlogged picked back up speed, we entered a 55 mph work zone where people feel they have to drive 35 mph because there's barriers on one side.

At least all the work zones and barriers on I-64 are widening it to 6-lanes. They just finished a bunch of 6-lane widening down in Newport News & Williamsburg, and it's so much smoother than it was when it was 2-lanes, and it's easy to pass slow moving vehicles like that truck.

Quote from: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 09:07:37 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 08:48:48 PM
I certainly have, many times. But the confidence that they'll do it and get over when they're done makes it much more bearable than a car doing the same thing.

Even if it takes much, much longer and you can't see anything around them?  Especially if it goes on for miles if the truck is actually passing 3 trucks and a RV?  Even if the car stays in the left lane (the majority of people do move over eventually, though maybe not if there's another car nearby that they're gonna pass), they can still be passed on the right.

Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2019, 09:29:17 PM
I'm not saying I like waiting for trucks to pass. But the greatest joy is when they're done and traffic can flow freely and the backlog clears up. That joy doesn't happen when it comes to left lane hogs, because they carry the backlog with them; it never goes away. And the ire of having to pass on the right dissipates any sanity preserved from the other factors.

Totally agree with this. I can deal with a truck taking 2-4 minutes to pass, because I know it will get back over. Left-lane campers, on the other hand, will likely continue to camp. At that point, it just becomes a slalom!

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 12:58:36 AM
I can deal with a truck taking 2-4 minutes to pass

What about when you're stuck behind one like in my case creating congestion and no where to pass for 15 minutes, 20 miles?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:57:12 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 12:58:36 AM
I can deal with a truck taking 2-4 minutes to pass

What about when you're stuck behind one like in my case creating congestion and no where to pass for 15 minutes, 20 miles?

It's certainly possible for that to happen once in a while, but I don't find it common to be stuck behind a truck for more than five minutes.
If it starts happening more frequently and for many miles, it's probably time to widen the road to six lanes.

I don't think it's that the truck drivers "don't care." I think it's more a case that they are far more aware of their vehicles' limitations and how they have to be driven, including the need to look further ahead and plan when to pass, than the average car driver is. They presumably know they're going to hold up other traffic, but they also know when they need to begin to pass if they're to have any realistic hope of completing the pass.

Of course it's frustrating as a car driver. But most truck drivers aren't doing it out of some sort of sadistic desire to give you a figurative middle finger by obstructing everyone.

Quote from: 1995hooBut most truck drivers aren't doing it out of some sort of sadistic desire to give you a figurative middle finger by obstructing everyone.

You'd hardly know it given the tone of some of these comments...

Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2019, 11:30:16 AM

Quote from: 1995hooBut most truck drivers aren't doing it out of some sort of sadistic desire to give you a figurative middle finger by obstructing everyone.

You'd hardly know it given the tone of some of these comments...

Yeah, and you know, of course some truck drivers are arseholes (as is true of pretty much any group of people you can name), which is why I worded it as I did in terms of "most truck drivers."  In my observation over the years, if you learn how truck drivers communicate with their lights and stuff and try to use the same signals to cooperate with them, they're usually fairly likely to try to get out of your way sooner, etc.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2019, 11:46:38 AM
of course some truck drivers are arseholes

I was driving down a stretch of I-65 in Alabama doing 70 mph in the right lane last year, and a truck tailgated me for 5 minutes with its brights on, and the left lane was wide open the entire time. Exits were 10-15 miles apart, so no excuse for having to exit anytime soon. So I decided to let off the gas and veer down to 68 mph, 66 mph, 64 mph (being in the slow lane, of course this is perfectly legal, and he has the entire left lane to pass) then after about 5 minutes, he finally got in the left lane and blew past doing at least 78 mph. It was as of something was preventing him for getting over. Only a few cars passed in those 5 minutes, there was plenty of opportunities for him to pass.

That's an arsehole. Those are the drivers who are dangerous.

Quote from: webny99 on July 03, 2019, 07:59:29 AM
If it starts happening more frequently and for many miles, it's probably time to widen the road to six lanes.

That's the goal, but only pieces are being completed. The rural 30 mile stretch is unfunded, so these trucks and overall regular drivers who feel the need to do 60-65 mph in the left lane continue to be issues. Speed limiters would only make it worse IMO.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2019, 11:26:06 AM
I don't think it's that the truck drivers "don't care." I think it's more a case that they are far more aware of their vehicles' limitations and how they have to be driven, including the need to look further ahead and plan when to pass, than the average car driver is. They presumably know they're going to hold up other traffic, but they also know when they need to begin to pass if they're to have any realistic hope of completing the pass.

Of course it's frustrating as a car driver. But most truck drivers aren't doing it out of some sort of sadistic desire to give you a figurative middle finger by obstructing everyone.

Knowing that you said 'most'...

It takes 2 to tango.  If one driver is in the right lane, and another driver is in the left lane, and for some reason can't complete the pass, either the driver in the left lane needs to slow down to go back to the right lane, or the truck driver in the right lane can slow down to allow the passing truck to complete the pass.  If neither happens, then they are both arseholes.

Quote from: webny99 on July 03, 2019, 07:59:29 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:57:12 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 12:58:36 AM
I can deal with a truck taking 2-4 minutes to pass

What about when you’re stuck behind one like in my case creating congestion and no where to pass for 15 minutes, 20 miles?

It's certainly possible for that to happen once in a while, but I don't find it common to be stuck behind a truck for more than five minutes.
If it starts happening more frequently and for many miles, it's probably time to widen the road to six lanes.

I don't know of any criteria that states if trucks aren't passing each other then the road should be widened.  Most widenings will occur because traffic volumes are approaching the limitations of the roadway, not because trucks are obeying the speed limit.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2019, 11:46:38 AM

Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2019, 11:30:16 AM

Quote from: 1995hooBut most truck drivers aren't doing it out of some sort of sadistic desire to give you a figurative middle finger by obstructing everyone.

You'd hardly know it given the tone of some of these comments...

Yeah, and you know, of course some truck drivers are arseholes (as is true of pretty much any group of people you can name), which is why I worded it as I did in terms of “most truck drivers.” In my observation over the years, if you learn how truck drivers communicate with their lights and stuff and try to use the same signals to cooperate with them, they’re usually fairly likely to try to get out of your way sooner, etc.

I remember reading a truckers' forum at one time, and there is a lot of complaining about how the new breed of truckers don't use these signals like the truckers of last century did.  And I get that - for example, a trucker driving the center lane of a 3 lane highway at the speed limit or less is holding up his fellow truckers, rather than staying in the right lane.  So while some truckers may still flash their lights and such, even the truckers will say they don't communicate like they used to.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
It takes 2 to tango.  If one driver is in the right lane, and another driver is in the left lane, and for some reason can't complete the pass, either the driver in the left lane needs to slow down to go back to the right lane, or the truck driver in the right lane can slow down to allow the passing truck to complete the pass.  If neither happens, then they are both arseholes.

I sort of agree, but I think the primary responsibility lies with the driver on the left. They obviously got over for a reason, so they need to figure out what they need to do to pass / get out of the way / etc. It's not the person on the right's job to accommodate the foolishness of others. If I was the one on the right, I wouldn't change my speed right away. I would let it be for a while, and then be the nice guy and speed up (or slow down) once it's clear that the person on the left is lacking a pulse or otherwise unresponsive to the situation.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 03, 2019, 07:59:29 AM
It's certainly possible for that to happen once in a while, but I don't find it common to be stuck behind a truck for more than five minutes.
If it starts happening more frequently and for many miles, it's probably time to widen the road to six lanes.

I don't know of any criteria that states if trucks aren't passing each other then the road should be widened.  Most widenings will occur because traffic volumes are approaching the limitations of the roadway, not because trucks are obeying the speed limit.

Wait, what?
My point is that if truck volumes are high enough that they are regularly passing each other, and them doing so causes significant and recurring slowdowns for other traffic, then it may be time to look at a widening. The speed limit is not necessarily relevant.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
not because trucks are obeying the speed limit.

When the truck in the left lane is doing 60.5 passing a line of trucks and passenger vehicles doing 60 mph in the right lane for 15 miles, and the speed limit is 70 mph, the truck isn't "obeying the speed limit".

If anything, it gives more temptation for vehicles behind it to gun it as soon as the truck moves over to make up for time lost. Or in the case of I-64 in Virginia, continue to slowly accelerate to 70 mph and take forever doing it.

Either way, that stretch of I-64 has 60,000 - 70,000 AADT and high truck volumes. The stretch leaving Richmond is currently being expanded to 6-lanes, and the stretch leaving Hampton Roads is 2/3 complete (3 phases, 21 miles, 12 miles completed, 9 miles under construction) to 6-lanes. There's no designated funding currently, but the end goal is to expand the remaining 30 miles between the two widening projects to 6-lanes as well, and create a consistent 6-lane section between Richmond and Hampton Roads.

Had a truck run me off the road on I-81 im Virginia at night once.  There was a right lane closure.  I moved over to the left lane when he was more than a decent length behind me.  He decided to speed up in the right lane right along side of me and move over right at the barrels.

I was able to just swerve and somehow still ended up in front of him, at which point he turned on his brights.

Never had an experience before or after like it.

Quote from: Rothman on July 03, 2019, 01:02:47 PM
Had a truck run me off the road on I-81 im Virginia at night once.  There was a right lane closure.  I moved over to the left lane when he was more than a decent length behind me.  He decided to speed up in the right lane right along side of me and move over right at the barrels.

I was able to just swerve and somehow still ended up in front of him, at which point he turned on his brights.

Never had an experience before or after like it.

Well, when he ends up in one of the daily I-81 wrecks, he'll know why.

Reckless driving at its finest.

Quote from: webny99 on July 03, 2019, 07:59:29 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
I don't know of any criteria that states if trucks aren't passing each other then the road should be widened.  Most widenings will occur because traffic volumes are approaching the limitations of the roadway, not because trucks are obeying the speed limit.

Wait, what?
My point is that if truck volumes are high enough that they are regularly passing each other, and them doing so causes significant and recurring slowdowns for other traffic, then it may be time to look at a widening. The speed limit is not necessarily relevant.

Trucks pass each other all the time. Hardly anything unusual about that anywhere.  The problem is when they are passing each other and one slows down to match the speed of the other.  How often have you seen that occur?  We can name examples here and there, but ultimately it's rare. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 12:50:51 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
not because trucks are obeying the speed limit.

When the truck in the left lane is doing 60.5 passing a line of trucks and passenger vehicles doing 60 mph in the right lane for 15 miles, and the speed limit is 70 mph, the truck isn't "obeying the speed limit".

Overall a rare situation.  Why would 2 trucks both go significantly below the limit?

Also, you may want to look up what a speed limit is.  It's a limit, not a suggestion.  The trucker doing the passing could be cited for failure to keep right or obstruction of traffic, but he certainly can't be cited for failure to obey the speed limit.  What if the speed limit was 65 and one truck was going 65 and the other going 64.5?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Why would 2 trucks both go significantly below the limit?

Truck in the left lane going 60.5 mph and at least 7 vehicles in the right lane going 60 mph.

Traffic is usually slower on that highway and a lot of people seem to have a hard time obeying the speed limit. At points, I was able to get a glimpse in front of the truck obstructing the left lane on curves, and sure enough wide open highway in front of him, nothing in sight, but behind me was traffic piled up, tailgating, etc.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
The trucker doing the passing could be cited for failure to keep right or obstruction of traffic, but he certainly can't be cited for failure to obey the speed limit.  What if the speed limit was 65 and one truck was going 65 and the other going 64.5?

Different story. This truck was holding everybody 10 mph under the speed limit for 15 miles. Yes, the speed limit is a "limit" not a "suggestion", but stay out of the fast lane if you can't maintain it. The right lane exists for slower traffic - and that truck could have slowed from 60.5 mph to 60 mph. If I'm going .5 mph faster than someone and don't intend speeding up, I'll generally just stay behind them and reduce my speed .5 mph. I'm not going to hold up traffic doing an incredibly slow pass, or if I'm comfortable enough, I'll speed up to quickly pass then slow back down.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:58:01 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Every freeway, all over the world, has the occasional passing truck holding up traffic. It's just how things work. Trucks are slower than passenger vehicles. Period. They have the right to pass. Period. Sure, some take longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to do it. Sure, it comes across as rude, but consider that perhaps both vehicles are limited to 60? And who knows how long both of those trucks will be on a particular stretch of road. The following truck eventually has to give.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 12:50:51 PM
When the truck in the left lane is doing 60.5 passing a line of trucks and passenger vehicles doing 60 mph in the right lane for 15 miles, and the speed limit is 70 mph, the truck isn't "obeying the speed limit".

Yes it is.  The speed limit is the maximum allowable speed.  Absent a minimum speed limit, the burden of proof is on you to prove that driving 9.5 mph below the speed limit constitutes a safety hazard.

Quote from: kphoger on July 03, 2019, 03:11:43 PM
the burden of proof is on you to prove that driving 9.5 mph below the speed limit constitutes a safety hazard.

When there's recurring congestion, tailgating, and reckless weaving in and out of lanes piling up for miles behind the truck, that is a safety hazard.

It's one thing to pass. But to ride the flow of traffic in the right lane inching and creeping pass it in the left lane for 15 miles only causes issues itself.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:54:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on July 03, 2019, 03:11:43 PM
the burden of proof is on you to prove that driving 9.5 mph below the speed limit constitutes a safety hazard.

When there's recurring congestion, tailgating, and reckless weaving in and out of lanes piling up for miles behind the truck, that is a safety hazard.

It's one thing to pass. But to ride the flow of traffic in the right lane inching and creeping pass it in the left lane for 15 miles only causes issues itself.

One driver doing something does not cause "recurring" anything.  If one driver's actions can demonstrably be shown to cause tailgating and reckless weaving, then there may be a case for his having disobeyed the general speed limit clause of not creating a hazard.  Otherwise, no offense was done.

Quote from: kphoger on July 03, 2019, 04:25:47 PM
One driver doing something does not cause "recurring" anything.

What it does is cause people doing 70-80 mph to have to slow down to 60 mph, and that would involve hitting the breaks. A domino effect is then created with people hitting breaks, and with the amount of traffic on the road, it ends up causing slowdowns as the break hitting is taken miles back.

This has been proven time and time again.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 04:32:39 PM

Quote from: kphoger on July 03, 2019, 04:25:47 PM
One driver doing something does not cause "recurring" anything.

What it does is cause people doing 70-80 mph to have to slow down to 60 mph, and that would involve hitting the breaks. A domino effect is then created with people hitting breaks, and with the amount of traffic on the road, it ends up causing slowdowns as the break hitting is taken miles back.

This has been proven time and time again.

Meanwhile, time after time, all across the world, nothing bad at all happens as a result.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 12:50:51 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 12:23:56 PM
not because trucks are obeying the speed limit.

When the truck in the left lane is doing 60.5 passing a line of trucks and passenger vehicles doing 60 mph in the right lane for 15 miles, and the speed limit is 70 mph, the truck isn't "obeying the speed limit".

Overall a rare situation.  Why would 2 trucks both go significantly below the limit?

Maybe so that they wouldn't go above the limit in the first place.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 03:00:40 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:58:01 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Around here, I-4 is more accident-prone than any other freeway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 04:32:39 PM

Quote from: kphoger on July 03, 2019, 04:25:47 PM
One driver doing something does not cause "recurring" anything.

What it does is cause people doing 70-80 mph to have to slow down to 60 mph, and that would involve hitting the breaks. A domino effect is then created with people hitting breaks, and with the amount of traffic on the road, it ends up causing slowdowns as the break hitting is taken miles back.

This has been proven time and time again.

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

It speaks far more to the impatience and aggressiveness of drivers (and there's plenty of both in Hampton Roads) than it does to the trucks and how the trucks pass each other.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 03:00:40 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:58:01 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Every freeway, all over the world, has the occasional passing truck holding up traffic. It's just how things work. Trucks are slower than passenger vehicles. Period. They have the right to pass. Period. Sure, some take longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to do it. Sure, it comes across as rude, but consider that perhaps both vehicles are limited to 60? And who knows how long both of those trucks will be on a particular stretch of road. The following truck eventually has to give.

That is true, but my own observations are it happens more on I-64 than most other highways (although I haven't lived there since 2007). Norfolk/Hampton Roads is the busiest container port on the East Coast and the only interstate connecting it to its largest markets to the north and northwest. (US 58 and US 460 are good four lane highways, but have stoplights and less direct.) I-64 is also still two lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond's near eastern suburbs with AADT's of about 60K or more in each direction on its least busy stretch with a much higher percentage of truck traffic than typical highways. Add the rolling hills affecting trucks passing each other as I-64 goes in and out of the shallow valleys of the Peninsula and you have a nightmare formula, especially on the end of tourist weekends. I used to regularly use US 460 to drive to DC even though it normally took almost 30 minutes longer just to avoid I-64 frustration.

^ Did you not try US 60 between Bottoms Bridge and Toano?  I found it a quiet alternative to I-64 through that stretch.  4 lanes (except for using VA 30 at the easternmost end) and very useful if you're not in a hurry.

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 11:45:40 AM
^ Did you not try US 60 between Bottoms Bridge and Toano?  I found it a quiet alternative to I-64 through that stretch.  4 lanes (except for using VA 30 at the easternmost end) and very useful if you're not in a hurry.

I know this question is not directed at me, but I will agree. I tried it recently because I had never used it and was sitting in traffic at Toano, and it certainly is a nice road with minimal frustration compared to I-64.

I was indeed in a hurry, and I'm sure it saved time over sitting in stop go I-64 Saturday morning traffic. It was easy to average 60-65 mph as most of it is 55 mph. Those rural stretches should definitely be considered for 60 mph by VDOT IMO. Most of it is divided highway, and compared to other 60 mph highways, it could handle it.

Though I will say, US 460 works the best especially if you're going to South Hampton Roads, because while US 60 avoids the Toano to Bottoms Bridge stretch, it doesn't avoid the HRBT and MMMBT. US-460 does. During off peak hours though, I'll generally just stick to I-64, or go around congestion on US-60, if the tunnels are clear.

As for that 2-lane section, you'd think by now they would have 4-laned it. But obviously now, the priority for any money needs to go to I-64 widening to 6-lanes.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 11:43:38 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 03:00:40 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:58:01 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Every freeway, all over the world, has the occasional passing truck holding up traffic. It's just how things work. Trucks are slower than passenger vehicles. Period. They have the right to pass. Period. Sure, some take longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to do it. Sure, it comes across as rude, but consider that perhaps both vehicles are limited to 60? And who knows how long both of those trucks will be on a particular stretch of road. The following truck eventually has to give.

That is true, but my own observations are it happens more on I-64 than most other highways (although I haven't lived there since 2007). Norfolk/Hampton Roads is the busiest container port on the East Coast and the only interstate connecting it to its largest markets to the north and northwest. (US 58 and US 460 are good four lane highways, but have stoplights and less direct.) I-64 is also still two lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond's near eastern suburbs with AADT's of about 60K or more in each direction on its least busy stretch with a much higher percentage of truck traffic than typical highways. Add the rolling hills affecting trucks passing each other as I-64 goes in and out of the shallow valleys of the Peninsula and you have a nightmare formula, especially on the end of tourist weekends. I used to regularly use US 460 to drive to DC even though it normally took almost 30 minutes longer just to avoid I-64 frustration.

I'd consider US-460 being the better alternative... I've considered US-58, but because of the way I-95 arcs northeast north of Emporia, it makes that alternative indirect.

VA-35 is also a nice alternative from Courtland to I-95. It's 40 miles of 2-lane road, but it's all 55 mph with no stop lights. US-460 though is still faster in the end, but it's the second best.

New Jersey/New York and Savannah ports are actually the biggest on the East Coast, but Port of Virginia is the 3rd, and does generate a significant amount of truck traffic, as you mentioned.

US-58 is the main route to I-95 and I-85 south, and I-64 is to the north, west, and southwest (to the I-81 corridor).

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 12:50:39 PM

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 11:43:38 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2019, 03:00:40 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:58:01 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2019, 01:44:28 PM
Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Every freeway, all over the world, has the occasional passing truck holding up traffic. It's just how things work. Trucks are slower than passenger vehicles. Period. They have the right to pass. Period. Sure, some take longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to do it. Sure, it comes across as rude, but consider that perhaps both vehicles are limited to 60? And who knows how long both of those trucks will be on a particular stretch of road. The following truck eventually has to give.

That is true, but my own observations are it happens more on I-64 than most other highways (although I haven't lived there since 2007). Norfolk/Hampton Roads is the busiest container port on the East Coast and the only interstate connecting it to its largest markets to the north and northwest. (US 58 and US 460 are good four lane highways, but have stoplights and less direct.) I-64 is also still two lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond's near eastern suburbs with AADT's of about 60K or more in each direction on its least busy stretch with a much higher percentage of truck traffic than typical highways. Add the rolling hills affecting trucks passing each other as I-64 goes in and out of the shallow valleys of the Peninsula and you have a nightmare formula, especially on the end of tourist weekends. I used to regularly use US 460 to drive to DC even though it normally took almost 30 minutes longer just to avoid I-64 frustration.

I'd consider US-460 being the better alternative... I've considered US-58, but because of the way I-95 arcs northeast north of Emporia, it makes that alternative indirect.

VA-35 is also a nice alternative from Courtland to I-95. It's 40 miles of 2-lane road, but it's all 55 mph with no stop lights. US-460 though is still faster in the end, but it's the second best.

New Jersey/New York and Savannah ports are actually the biggest on the East Coast, but Port of Virginia is the 3rd, and does generate a significant amount of truck traffic, as you mentioned.

US-58 is the main route to I-95 and I-85 south, and I-64 is to the north, west, and southwest (to the I-81 corridor).

Completely agree on US 460 being the better alternative. (I worked for the fed govt so I was regularly driving to DC from my home in Portsmouth. I also often used US 301/17 on my return trips from DC to avoid the evening jams at Quantico Creek when the HOV lanes ended there.) I only included US 58 for completeness and agree it's not practical for any traffic head anything north or NW of Richmond. I also preferred US 17/64 over US 58/I-85 to Raleigh; a bit longer but significantly less traffic and IMO more scenic.

I had thought Norfolk was the largest container port. My mistake. It's what the local news frequently said when I was there, with near constant expansion to stay ahead of Savannah and Charleston. Regardless, the funneling of a large majority of that container traffic to I-64 creates regular truck traffic jams between Newport News and Richmond as you still experience. It desperately needs to be upgraded to at least six lanes like US 95 north of Richmond.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 01:30:00 PM
I also preferred US 17/64 over US 58/I-85 to Raleigh; a bit longer but significantly less traffic and IMO more scenic.

I'd agree. I tend to use that route when I have time, but if I'm in a hurry, I'll use US-58.

The US-64 freeway is a lot nicer then the I-95 stretch between Emporia and Rocky Mount. Less traffic, and overall nicer design.

Interestingly enough, that's the route for Interstate 87 which will run between Raleigh and Norfolk. It'll still be longer than US-58, but it will bring US-17 up to interstate standards and 70 mph speed limits, so travel times will end up being similar to US-58, and will provide an interstate-grade alternative to I-95 South and Raleigh over US-58. Something I'd certainly use, especially over US-58. The only reason I still use that road is because there's no other route that has similar travel times.

I-87 will likely sway more passenger vehicle traffic than truck traffic due to mileage, however the goal is to open up new businesses and warehouses on the corridor, and in turn would attract truck traffic. I-40 had this success story when it opened to Wilmington in 1990.  The population has since tripled there, and the hope is that similar results will come to Northeastern NC, especially south of the state line & Elizabeth City.

Also, US-17 alone is already a trucking corridor (smaller than US-58, but nonetheless has truck traffic)  so the upgrade will benefit them. It also could sway traffic from heading inland to I-95 then back down onto I-87 & US-17.

The corridor would also bypass the bottleneck that I-95 can be, especially during heavy travel times. Something I'd go for without question.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 01:30:00 PM
I had thought Norfolk was the largest container port. My mistake. It's what the local news frequently said when I was there, with near constant expansion to stay ahead of Savannah and Charleston. Regardless, the funneling of a large majority of that container traffic to I-64 creates regular truck traffic jams between Newport News and Richmond as you still experience. It desperately needs to be upgraded to at least six lanes like US 95 north of Richmond.

Agreed. In 2017, the highway opened up to 6-lanes up to Fort Eustis, and back in May it opened up to 6-lanes to VA-199 / Busch Gardens area. Currently, it's under construction to extend that 6-lanes to north of Lightfoot, opening in 2021. A 5 mile stretch of I-64 east of I-295 is also being expanded to 6-lanes, opening at the end of the year. They are still pushing for funding to expand the rest of the corridor to 6-lanes but currently it's unfunded.

The HRBT is being expanded to 8-lanes (2 GP + 2 HO/T lanes each way) in a $3.8 billion project starting next year, and the High Rise Bridge corridor is having one HO/T lane added each way currently under construction.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 02:16:54 PM
Agreed. In 2017, the highway opened up to 6-lanes up to Fort Eustis, and back in May it opened up to 6-lanes to VA-199 / Busch Gardens area. Currently, it's under construction to extend that 6-lanes to north of Lightfoot, opening in 2021. A 5 mile stretch of I-64 east of I-295 is also being expanded to 6-lanes, opening at the end of the year. They are still pushing for funding to expand the rest of the corridor to 6-lanes but currently it's unfunded.

The HRBT is being expanded to 8-lanes (2 GP + 2 HO/T lanes each way) in a $3.8 billion project starting next year, and the High Rise Bridge corridor is having one HO/T lane added each way currently under construction.

Good news. The more they widen I-64 and keep a truck-free lane inside, the better for everyone. It would definitely help maneuver around truck traffic and especially if they legalize that stupid 65 mph limit nationwide. I live in the Coachella Valley now, and that 65 limit would be a disaster for traffic headed east on I-10 to Arizona. That stretch of highway already has far too many accidents for a rural four-lane interstate.

I remember the HRBT regularly backing up to I-564 when I worked at NOB. It made my daily Midtown crossing more tolerable mentally (except that month after Isabel), and I was glad they finally got around to making the Midtown four lanes after I left. I like the idea of widening the HRBT much better than the proposed Third Crossing which I think would have been an eyesore along with much worse environmentally. The High Rise widening surprises me, but that need also goes back at least 15 years. Just surprised VA is actually doing something about it.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
Good news. The more they widen I-64 and keep a truck-free lane inside, the better for everyone.

Agreed, and that is correct. Signage is well posted on the newly widened portions that prohibit commercial vehicles from the left lane - yet already I've encountered trucks that ignore that - as you find on most 6-8 lane highways that prohibit trucks in those lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1664355,-76.5466523,3a,37.5y,167.82h,82.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szMWSviv5Dc4u9vL1rNQ_eQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

The 6-lane sections are so much nicer and flow much smoother than the 4-lane sections. When Segment 3 between the two VA-199 interchanges is completed in 2021, 21 miles of I-64 would have been widened from 4-lanes to 6-lanes between 2015 and 2021. The only disadvantage is the trees have all been removed from the median to do this, but it's a sacrifice that's completely worth it.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
I remember the HRBT regularly backing up to I-564 when I worked at NOB.

Still that way - and hopefully 8-lanes will significantly relieve that - even if they are HO/T lanes (HOV free, single occupancy pay toll). The reversible HOV lanes between I-264 and I-564 were converted last year to HO/T as well - and have been successful supposedly as most of the traffic is toll-paying SOV vehicles - traffic that could not use it in the past.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
I was glad they finally got around to making the Midtown four lanes after I left.

With a toll, but still a good project overall. The whole tolling the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels in 2014 did not / does not still sit well with many people.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
I like the idea of widening the HRBT much better than the proposed Third Crossing which I think would have been an eyesore along with much worse environmentally.

Well, the HRBT is just one project, the end goal is indeed to build the Third Crossing between I-564 and I-664, along with the Craney Island Connector between the Third Crossing and VA-164, plus widening I-664 to 8-lanes.

Actually, the first segment of the Third Crossing was completed back in December 2017. A $169 mile 3-mile freeway - the Intermodal Connector - providing a direct link I-564 to Norfolk International Terminal's North Gate, along with Gate 6 of Naval Station Norfolk with no stop lights or cross roads. It was mostly a project to get port trucks directly to the interstate and off of Hampton Blvd, along with better access to that side of the base, though in the long run it's the route of the Third Crossing, and is designed to accommodate that eventual routing, and a future extension.

You can see the freeway partially completed on Google Maps - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9290689,-76.3074421,3574m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

This is the ultimate build with the Third Crossing - http://www.i564intermodal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Project-Land-Display.pdf

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
The High Rise widening surprises me, but that need also goes back at least 15 years.

The I-64 corridor between I-464 and Bowers Hill is being expanded by a $409 million project that is adding 1 HO/T lane in each direction (creating a total of 6-lanes), and constructing a new, fixed-span 100 ft clearance (the current is a lift-span 65 ft clearance) High Rise Bridge. When completed, the new High Rise Bridge will carry traffic going towards Va Beach, and the existing bridge will carry traffic heading to Bowers Hill. In a decade or so, another project will demolish the existing High Rise Bridge, built a parallel fixed-span second bridge, and widen the corridor to 8-lanes, with that 4th lane each way's management (HO/T or GP) to be determined at a later date.

Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
Just surprised VA is actually doing something about it.

The gas tax was increased in the Hampton Roads district in 2013 with the creation of the HRTAC (Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission) which brings in around $200 - $300 million annually. The creation of this program has enabled funding to get these long-overdue projects started. The program has made the I-64 Peninsula Widening, I-264 / I-64 Interchange Expansion, I-64 High Rise Bridge Corridor, HRBT Expansion, and other projects possible. In the future, it's expected to fund 8-laning the High Rise Corridor, the Third Crossing, the Bowers Hill Interchange expansion / replacement, and upgrading US-58 / US-13 / US-460 between Bowers Hill and Suffolk to interstate standards. Other, currently unidentified massive projects may be added to this list in the future if determined appropriate, including newer projects like I-87 to North Carolina, etc.

The rest of the state has not seen the benefits Hampton Roads has, at least until now. The gas tax was increased July 1st along the I-81 corridor which will bring in $151 million annually which will fund $2.2 billion worth of improvements of I-81. It's not a full widening, though key urban areas, along with Christiansburg to Roanoke will be expanded to 6-lanes. The other improvements include interchange improvements, curve realignments, acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, sight improvements, VMS, and other safety features enhanced on the corridor.

A gas tax increase is coming in 2021 to the rest of the state that will bring in money towards improving I-64 and I-95 as well, and hopefully that will help accelerate the widening of I-64 to 6-lanes to Richmond, along with widening I-95 to 8-lanes at least north of Fredericksburg now that the HO/T lane extension down to Fredericksburg will be done by 2022. That may also help fund the construction of Interstate 73 between North Carolina and Roanoke, but that may be wishing to much. That 65 mile freeway has been waiting for funding since the 90s and just recently they made the decision to not try to build it all at once, but rather in phases. The first 6-mile phase is having an EIS completed, and that may be funded eventually, extending from the Martinsville Bypass to North Carolina.

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 02:41:46 PM

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

The point is it's when one person lightly taps their brakes to quickly slow from 75 - 80 mph to 60.5 mph, then the people behind hit it harder and harder each car the effect ripples to. Eventually, with so much traffic, it ends up going 25-30 cars back and everybody is down to 30 - 40 mph.

There's been instances where everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph and everyone has to slam their brake down to 30 mph. Hard to look ahead when you're in a full flow of traffic and everybody is doing one speed.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2019, 03:06:57 PM
The point is it's when one person lightly taps their brakes to quickly slow from 75 - 80 mph to 60.5 mph,

Ignoring that such a large change in speed at such a rate is not possible with a "light tap"...

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2019, 03:06:57 PM
then the people behind hit it harder and harder each car the effect ripples to. Eventually, with so much traffic, it ends up going 25-30 cars back and everybody is down to 30 - 40 mph.
There's been instances where everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph and everyone has to slam their brake down to 30 mph. Hard to look ahead when you're in a full flow of traffic and everybody is doing one speed.

The facts are that trucks are usually relatively decent about waiting for a gap to pass. Sometimes, they get aggressive, but they don't usually interfere with the flow of the passing cars by forcing their way in at 20-30 mph slower than everyone else. They have some degree of patience, or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing.
Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

A single left lane hog can do it. It causes a chain reaction.

Quote from: 1 on July 05, 2019, 03:21:03 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

A single left lane hog can do it. It causes a chain reaction.

It's possible, but it also takes bad drivers (cramming the brakes excessively, as froggie mentioned) behind the left lane hog.
I would surmise the chain would have to be several miles long before travel speeds were actually that low for a sustained period.

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 03:27:42 PM

Quote from: 1 on July 05, 2019, 03:21:03 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

A single left lane hog can do it. It causes a chain reaction.

It's possible, but it also takes bad drivers (cramming the brakes excessively, as froggie mentioned) behind the left lane hog.
I would surmise the chain would have to be several miles long before travel speeds were actually that low for a sustained period.

It's I-64. I expect no less.

That wasn't per se due to the truck, but a lot of stupid drivers rather. And this chain did go on for miles, the interstate was -crowded-.

I think comments about how one of the truck drivers should slow down so they both get back in the right lane tend to overlook one of the issues with trucks that explains some of how truck drivers operate. Obviously trucks don't accelerate nearly as well as cars, to the point where most truckers really hate to do something that will cause them to lose momentum and possibly wind up slowing even more (especially on hilly or mountainous roads)–to some degree, it's possible that doing that might wind up slowing the rest of the traffic even more.

---

A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

^ Could be a regional thing.  Up here in Northern New England, drivers will typically shift over to the climbing lane.  By law, they're usually supposed to given Keep Right Except To Pass.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
I think comments about how one of the truck drivers should slow down so they both get back in the right lane tend to overlook one of the issues with trucks that explains some of how truck drivers operate. Obviously trucks don't accelerate nearly as well as cars, to the point where most truckers really hate to do something that will cause them to lose momentum and possibly wind up slowing even more (especially on hilly or mountainous roads)–to some degree, it's possible that doing that might wind up slowing the rest of the traffic even more.

---

A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

The climbing lane is for vehicles that cannot maintain the speed limit. A car travelling at the maximum legal speed (my car) is not "slow". I generally don't stay in lanes that are ending in less than a minute. I'll use the climbing lane if there's no other passing lane.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

I'll usually do it when there's no trucks in that lane. It doesn't matter if it's a "climbing" lane, it's still a 3-lane roadway, and unless I'm passing, I tend to stay right. Sometimes though I'll stay in the middle lane, or the previous right lane before the climbing lane formed.

A stretch of I-69 in Indiana was just completed as an upgrade to the old SR-37 arterial, and oddly enough through a grade, INDOT constructed a left lane on the new interstate that forms as a "passing lane" and the right lane automatically becomes the "climbing lane". I thought this was a weird layout - usually a right lane forms as the "slow lane" and the two other lanes continue on their path.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

If it's a two-lane road, I always move over to the right lane because a climbing lane presents a rare opportunity for faster traffic to pass without oncoming traffic. On an interstate or four-lane road, oncoming traffic isn't an issue, and I will typically stay in the middle lane. There's also the risk of going around a curve and encountering a very slow truck that wasn't visible before, which is more likely on interstates and four-lane roads since those typically have higher truck traffic counts.

Quote from: yand on July 05, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
The climbing lane is for vehicles that cannot maintain the speed limit. A car travelling at the maximum legal speed (my car) is not "slow". I generally don't stay in lanes that are ending in less than a minute. I'll use the climbing lane if there's no other passing lane.

At least in WA, the climbing lane is not for any specific vehicle. It was built with trucks in mind, but can (and legally shall) be used by all vehicles, given that the law requires drivers to use the right-most lane except for various exceptions (turning left, emergency vehicles, etc).

^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

Quote from: froggie on July 06, 2019, 06:35:34 AM
^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

Huh.  Where are these types of climbing lanes in MA?  I can only think of places where they are general purpose (e.g., MA 116 on the south side of the Holyoke Range).

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 02:41:46 PM

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2019, 09:40:38 AM

Quote from: froggie on July 06, 2019, 06:35:34 AM
^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

Huh.  Where are these types of climbing lanes in MA?  I can only think of places where they are general purpose (e.g., MA 116 on the south side of the Holyoke Range).

MA 2 west out of Greenfield is the first that comes to mind.  Also MA 10 west from the river towards 91.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

On two lane roads, Ontario starts the dashes for the new lane in the middle of the road, so you have to actively move to the left/ "passing" lane, instead of ending up there by default. I really like this practice, and wish it would be done more often.

Unless I'm actively passing, I will always move to the right if there's anyone in sight behind me. It seems like passing on the right is more common than passing on the left, as trucks and large vehicles are usually the only other ones to move right. It is a bit counter-intuitive, but I guess this means I move right largely in case I need to pass the slow guy on the left, not the other way around.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2019, 10:34:12 AM

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 02:41:46 PM

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Which is more important, or which would I rather?  :spin:
I believe that passing on the right should occur as little as possible, so I'm not going to let you in if you just passed me on the right. I was on the left for a reason. People cutting in at the last second is what causes the unsustainability and hard braking in the first place.

Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2019, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2019, 10:34:12 AM

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 02:41:46 PM

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Which is more important, or which would I rather?  :spin:
I believe that passing on the right should occur as little as possible, so I'm not going to let you in if you just passed me on the right. I was on the left for a reason. People cutting in at the last second is what causes the unsustainability and hard braking in the first place.

Huh...you literally said you purposely speed up. You are personally causing your own hard braking because you don't want to let someone else in.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2019, 05:09:41 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2019, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2019, 10:34:12 AM

Quote from: webny99 on July 05, 2019, 02:41:46 PM

Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Which is more important, or which would I rather?  :spin:
I believe that passing on the right should occur as little as possible, so I'm not going to let you in if you just passed me on the right. I was on the left for a reason. People cutting in at the last second is what causes the unsustainability and hard braking in the first place.

Huh...you literally said you purposely speed up. You are personally causing your own hard braking because you don't want to let someone else in.

No, if people weren't cutting in downstream, and if everyone kept passing at a reasonable differential, no one would have to brake at all. I know that isn't likely, but I'm still not going to allow others to get past and add to the problem developing right behind the truck or other obstacle.

Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2019, 05:21:36 PM
No, if people weren't cutting in downstream, and if everyone kept passing at a reasonable differential, no one would have to brake at all. I know that isn't likely, but I'm still not going to allow others to get past and add to the problem developing right behind the truck or other obstacle.

If there's something downstream that is going to require some braking, it's probably best to use all available lane space, in both lanes, and forgo any sort of KRETP rules. At that point, just maximize available capacity and use all the lanes that the engineers provided.

I'm not sure what the problem is, with people going around you and cutting back in. They're using a lane that you're refusing to use. That's your problem, not theirs. Fact is, if we all stayed in one lane, backups would be enormous. I understand the rubber-band braking effect; this is why I tend to downshift instead of using my brakes. But it's not something that a single driver can actively avoid or solve.

They cause traffic to slow because there isn't a gap for them to merge into when they get to the vehicle everyone is passing, so people have to slow down to let them in.  You'll have a truck on the right doing 64, a truck on the left doing 66, but you're doing 50 because people are slowing down to let in people passing on the right.  It happens ALL THE TIME on the Thruway.

Zipper merge works great when everyone is on the same page and working together to make it happen, but not when it's only an excuse to cut in line.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2019, 05:37:13 PM
I'm not sure what the problem is, with people going around you and cutting back in. They're using a lane that you're refusing to use. That's your problem, not theirs.

When you can see 4 cars up in the right lane there's a slow moving vehicle, you're going to stay left even if the right lane is immediately open because you know you'll end up being in it.

The impatient one flying around on the right thinks he can pass 3 cars then have the right to squeeze back over.

If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us. They aren't getting anywhere being in front, and they were already behind to begin with, they can remain there until we all pass the slow moving right lane person, then spread back out.

Quote from: froggie on July 06, 2019, 11:44:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2019, 09:40:38 AM

Quote from: froggie on July 06, 2019, 06:35:34 AM
^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

Huh.  Where are these types of climbing lanes in MA?  I can only think of places where they are general purpose (e.g., MA 116 on the south side of the Holyoke Range).

MA 2 west out of Greenfield is the first that comes to mind.  Also MA 10 west from the river towards 91.

Hm.  How isn't the climbing lane on the Mohawk Trail general purpose?

It's striped as a shoulder and specifically signed "Slower Trucks Use Shoulder".

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2019, 09:27:24 PM
They cause traffic to slow because there isn't a gap for them to merge into when they get to the vehicle everyone is passing, so people have to slow down to let them in.  You'll have a truck on the right doing 64, a truck on the left doing 66, but you're doing 50 because people are slowing down to let in people passing on the right.  It happens ALL THE TIME on the Thruway.

How can you be in the left lane doing 50, when the leading vehicle is doing 66? I've never experienced that.

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2019, 09:27:24 PM
Zipper merge works great when everyone is on the same page and working together to make it happen, but not when it's only an excuse to cut in line.

How can you define when it is and isn't "cut[ting] in line"? One lane always ends, minus a few rare situations.

If one line of traffic is merging into another, for any reason, always zipper merge. People perceive "right" and "wrong" times to do it, but they base their opinion of "right" and "wrong" on their own personal feelings, not any sort of fact ("that guy is cheating"..."they had their chance"...). That is BS.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 06, 2019, 10:24:24 PM
If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 06, 2019, 10:24:24 PM
They aren't getting anywhere being in front

Neither are you. Why so defensive?

Many also have this theory that when a roadway loses a lane, it shouldn't cause a reduction in speed whatsoever.  Sometimes that's true, if the highway has the capacity to handle the existing traffic before and after the lane reduction.  Let's use some pretend numbers:

Highway lane can hold 2,000 vehicles per hour.  There's 3 lanes on the highway, merging to 2.

If there's an average of 3,000 vehicles on the highway in the 3 lane section (1,000 vehicles per hour per lane), then the 2 lane section can obsorb the 3,000 vehicles, as there's still room for 4,000 vehicles total.  In theory, people can keep moving with no problem.

If there's an average of 4,500 vehicles on the highway in the 3 lane section (1,500 vehicles per hour per lane), then the 2 lane section can NOT obsorb the 4,500 vehicles, as it will be 500 vehicles over capacity (250 per lane).

There's also an assumption that everyone will maintain their speed, and that the speed limit is the same before and after the merge point..  This is what throws most people off - people travel at all different speeds.  Some people are more hesitant than others, and some people like leaving bigger gaps than others.  And believe it or not, some people are actually travelling below the speed limit.  So in a merging situation, if you get a hesitant person or slow truck doing 60 rather than 70, everyone merging in behind that person will need to slow down too.

Constructions zones are the worst.  As mentioned in other responses above, people believe they should be moving the same speed before and after the merge point, and when people merge in it causes the slowdown.  However, often times the speed limit is slower in construction zones, so people SHOULD be slowing down.  There's also the fact that construction invites watching - drivers will natually slow down because they're looking at what is going on.  No all drivers will, but if Mr. John Doe slowed down to 20 mph because he was interested in what was going on rather than watching his speed, it causes everyone behind him to slow down to 20 mph. It doesn't matter where everyone merges in, because they're stuck going the slow speed John Doe is going, until he speeds up again, and traffic dies down a bit to reduce and eventually eliminiates the backlog.

I'm one of those people that likes to maintain a constant speed.  If I'm slowing down and it's not for a speed limit change, severe weather, or roadway conditions like curves/obstacles/etc. (the only thing that would be applicable to freeways off of ramps from this last bit would be toll barriers), I'm going to be annoyed.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2019, 04:29:31 AM
How can you be in the left lane doing 50, when the leading vehicle is doing 66? I've never experienced that.

Combined effect of people braking/slowing down to let others in over time.  Between Buffalo and Syracuse, the Thruway is prone to forming conga lines of dozens of cars all passing a smaller caravan of slow moving traffic (which can range from a single truck/RV to a whole bunch of them traveling near each other), especially on summer weekends and holidays (although Rochester/Buffalo does this even during the week, and yesterday's traffic was so bad that this was a system-wide phenomenon).  Oftentimes the vehicle being let in is going the speed of the vehicles being passed because otherwise they'd rear-end them.  When in one of these lines, speed can vary wildly - down to 65 as you approach, down to 50 when someone gets let in, up to 70 when catching back up to the lead car, etc. - and of course, whenever speed decreases, people slam on the brakes.  Traffic is heavy enough that trucks wanting to pass can't wait until they can do so without obstructing traffic - if they did, they would never pass at all.

Quote
How can you define when it is and isn't "cut[ting] in line"? One lane always ends, minus a few rare situations.

If one line of traffic is merging into another, for any reason, always zipper merge. People perceive "right" and "wrong" times to do it, but they base their opinion of "right" and "wrong" on their own personal feelings, not any sort of fact ("that guy is cheating"..."they had their chance"...). That is BS.

When driving myself, I always base it on a calculus of what can be reasonably foreseen.  If I'm at a gap where I can move over without interfering with traffic and can reasonably expect that there won't be a gap before I have to move over, I'll move over right then.  If there's already no gap, I'll take the lane to the end.  It's people who go all the way to the end, bypassing a reasonable gap to move over when it's clear that they won't have a clear gap to merge into later, that's the problem.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 06, 2019, 05:37:13 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2019, 05:21:36 PM
No, if people weren't cutting in downstream, and if everyone kept passing at a reasonable differential, no one would have to brake at all. I know that isn't likely, but I'm still not going to allow others to get past and add to the problem developing right behind the truck or other obstacle.

If there's something downstream that is going to require some braking, it's probably best to use all available lane space, in both lanes, and forgo any sort of KRETP rules. At that point, just maximize available capacity and use all the lanes that the engineers provided.

I'm not sure what the problem is, with people going around you and cutting back in. They're using a lane that you're refusing to use. That's your problem, not theirs. Fact is, if we all stayed in one lane, backups would be enormous. I understand the rubber-band braking effect; this is why I tend to downshift instead of using my brakes. But it's not something that a single driver can actively avoid or solve.

Vdeane pretty much nailed it with the response to this, so there's not a lot left to say. Rural interstates out west generally have a lot less volume than the Thruway, or other 2dis I frequent like I-81 or I-80.

If I am in the left lane, either (a) I am going to be actively passing immediately, or (b) I believe I have reached the last gap where I can expect to get in without cutting someone off. In (b), I always keep up with the car in front of me, regardless of their speed, after moving left. This serves two purposes: it keeps the left lane moving as fast as possible, and it ensures anyone behind me has to either get in behind me (which is what they should do) or go up further and force their way in. The left lane is the passing lane, and that's what it should be used for. Passing on the right is a last resort, and doing it to people who aren't actively left lane camping, and then forcing your way in and causing a line of a dozen, or sometimes even a hundred or more cars to brake, is just impatient and idiotic.

Quote from: vdeane on July 08, 2019, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2019, 04:29:31 AM
How can you be in the left lane doing 50, when the leading vehicle is doing 66? I've never experienced that.

Combined effect of people braking/slowing down to let others in over time. Between Buffalo and Syracuse, the Thruway is prone to forming conga lines of dozens of cars all passing a smaller caravan of slow moving traffic (which can range from a single truck/RV to a whole bunch of them traveling near each other), especially on summer weekends and holidays (although Rochester/Buffalo does this even during the week, and yesterday's traffic was so bad that this was a system-wide phenomenon).  Oftentimes the vehicle being let in is going the speed of the vehicles being passed because otherwise they'd rear-end them.  When in one of these lines, speed can vary wildly - down to 65 as you approach, down to 50 when someone gets let in, up to 70 when catching back up to the lead car, etc. - and of course, whenever speed decreases, people slam on the brakes.  Traffic is heavy enough that trucks wanting to pass can't wait until they can do so without obstructing traffic - if they did, they would never pass at all.

Excellent summary. The left lane frequently has fluctuations of 20+ mph; sometimes even double that (80 mph to 40 mph and repeat). Even if you can see well in front, it's hard to predict exactly what's happening upstream, and it's common to have the person in front of you hammer the brakes for no apparent reason, only to find out they were inches from rear ending the person in front of them. And so on.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2019, 04:29:31 AM
How can you define when it is and isn't "cut[ting] in line"? One lane always ends, minus a few rare situations.
If one line of traffic is merging into another, for any reason, always zipper merge. People perceive "right" and "wrong" times to do it, but they base their opinion of "right" and "wrong" on their own personal feelings, not any sort of fact ("that guy is cheating"..."they had their chance"...). That is BS.

In the case of passing trucks on a free-flowing highway, it is not really a matter of one line of traffic merging into another. When there is less than a car length of space next to you and you force your way in, you are cutting off. The person behind you will have to brake, there is just no way around it. Yet people will try to cut in with significantly less space than that; a few feet or even inches.
As mentioned, zipper only works when the lane drop is in a fixed position; not so much with moving parts.

What constitutes "cheating" is largely in the eyes of the beholder. If you have just come whizzing up on the right, it is certainly cheating in my book to force your way in at the end. That does nothing for anyone else but slows the whole system down for your own personal benefit. Impatient and idiotic, indeed. However, if you've been sitting behind the truck for 20 minutes, patiently waiting for a gap, I'm happy to slow slightly without braking and let you in. Then you need to be prepared to accelerate, pass quickly, and get back over when you're done.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2019, 04:29:31 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 06, 2019, 10:24:24 PM
If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

It depends on why they were in the right lane. If they're using it to get ahead of as many people as possible and cram in at the end, they deserve to be blocked. If they're innocently cruising along, it's their responsibility to get over as they see fit. If that's happens to be in front of me, that's fine, as long as I don't have to brake, and as long as they're going to keep up with the flow of the passing lane and not encourage me and everyone behind me to pass them on the right.

Quote from: webny99 on July 08, 2019, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2019, 04:29:31 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 06, 2019, 10:24:24 PM
If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

It depends on why they were in the right lane. If they're using it to get ahead of as many people as possible and cram in at the end, they deserve to be blocked. If they're innocently cruising along, it's their responsibility to get over as they see fit. If that's happens to be in front of me, that's fine, as long as I don't have to brake, and as long as they're going to keep up with the flow of the passing lane and not encourage me and everyone behind me to pass them on the right.

The instance I'm referring to is when everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph in a 70 mph, and then they explicitly get in the right lane just to speed up to 90 mph and then squeeze back in the left lane 3-5 cars up. I'm going to block them if I'm the car they are going to cut off and that's -their- problem. They are doing an illegal maneuver just to end up nowhere. They can get stuck behind the slow guy (who's actually still over the speed limit at 75 mph) and find a gap instead of trying to get in front of me usually causing me to have to slow down as they meet speed. I'm not going to let them in.

Now if they were innocently there and they are trying to get into the fast flow, I tend to let them. But not when they have been in the fast flow and think they can go even FASTER in the right lane to then have to cut me off just to get back in again.

And usually when they squeeze in front of me, if I let them, they'll end up tailgating and going in and out of lanes ahead until they can maintain 90 mph in a 70 mph. When everybody is doing 80 mph in the left lane, that's too slow for them.

This is speaking directly from experience.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 03:00:41 PM

Quote from: webny99 on July 08, 2019, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2019, 04:29:31 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 06, 2019, 10:24:24 PM
If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

It depends on why they were in the right lane. If they're using it to get ahead of as many people as possible and cram in at the end, they deserve to be blocked. If they're innocently cruising along, it's their responsibility to get over as they see fit. If that's happens to be in front of me, that's fine, as long as I don't have to brake, and as long as they're going to keep up with the flow of the passing lane and not encourage me and everyone behind me to pass them on the right.

The instance I'm referring to is when everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph in a 70 mph, and then they explicitly get in the right lane just to speed up to 90 mph and then squeeze back in the left lane 3-5 cars up. I'm going to block them if I'm the car they are going to cut off and that's -their- problem. They are doing an illegal maneuver just to end up nowhere. They can get stuck behind the slow guy (who's actually still over the speed limit at 75 mph) and find a gap instead of trying to get in front of me usually causing me to have to slow down as they meet speed. I'm not going to let them in.

Now if they were innocently there and they are trying to get into the fast flow, I tend to let them. But not when they have been in the fast flow and think they can go even FASTER in the right lane to then have to cut me off just to get back in again.

And usually when they squeeze in front of me, if I let them, they'll end up tailgating and going in and out of lanes ahead until they can maintain 90 mph in a 70 mph. When everybody is doing 80 mph in the left lane, that's too slow for them.

This is speaking directly from experience.

I'm looking forward to a world of self-driving vehicles as they will be programmed to maintain a safe following distance.  So as a human driver i will be able to cut infront of that self-driving vehicle and it won't "speed up" to block me in like the scenario you are describing.  I will have total immunity to be an A-hole driver.  Who knows though, maybe the self-driving vehicles will learn not to get pushed around by the human drivers, and speed up to block them in?  It's a whole new driving world we are living in.

Quote from: tradephoric on July 08, 2019, 03:25:40 PM
I will have total immunity to be an A-hole driver.

If you are going to go in the right lane to speed up to 90 mph then expect the left lane to let you back in because you made a poor choice - you are the A-hole driver.

You had your spot, you decided to give it up and think you could get around on the right when you couldn't - you can wait to get back in. I'm not going to slow down and reduce my speed so you can get back in.

And you mention "safe following distance". By squeezing in, you are reducing following distance and you end up doing the exact same thing you're trying to criticize other drivers from doing. When you squeeze in the gap, you end up riding close to the person in front, or forcing the person behind to end up riding close to you.

Bottom line - if the entire left lane is packed full of drivers doing 80 mph in a 70 mph zone and the right lane -looks- empty, chances are there's a slower vehicle and that's why everybody is hogging the left lane - to pass it. Just suck it up in the left lane until everybody passes - don't try to veer around on the right to get absolutely nowhere and then expect others to be kind enough to let you in and then get mad when they don't.

When this type of thing recurs often enough, the left lane probably has to carry too large a burden, and a case needs to made for widening the road. This is exactly why I have been so persistent in advocating for six laning the Thruway.

(The other reason being that all the bridges are already wide enough for it; all that's needed is the machines and labor to lay the asphalt down - probably a fraction of the cost of the switch to AET. The new lanes could even be summer-only, no need to plow and salt them in the winter when they're not needed.)

Quote from: webny99 on July 09, 2019, 04:31:18 PM
When this type of thing recurs often enough, the left lane probably has to carry too large a burden, and a case needs to made for widening the road. This is exactly why I have been so persistent in advocating for six laning the Thruway.

(The other reason being that all the bridges are already wide enough for it; all that's needed is the machines and labor to lay the asphalt down - probably a fraction of the cost of the switch to AET. The new lanes could even be summer-only, no need to plow and salt them in the winter when they're not needed.)

Same with I-64. A lot of slower trucks and vehicles use the right lane, and there's an excessive amount of traffic that slows the left lane down too. That, along with passing trucks, etc.

It carries 60,000 - 70,000 AADT, with up to 100,000 VPD on peak travel times, and is in serious need of 6-lanes.

Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

We had speech recognition working in test in 1982. Siri was released in what? 2012? Alexa still doesn't get "The Doors eponous first album" or "The Doors The Doors" at least when I say it.

"Self Driving cars" and "autonomous large trucks that can reliably share the road with other vehicles under less than ideal conditions" are not necessarily the same thing, but we will get there, but it might be 2050. On the other hand, if the driverless trucks all reliably got themselves to or from a truck center in Lodi or Gilroy or Dixon or and the human drivers all jockeyed them from there, it might certainly be an improvement in both safety and trucker's lives.

Quote from: michravera on July 09, 2019, 06:39:20 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 01:28:58 AM
At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

I wouldn't be surprised if self-driving trucks became commonplace first. Most drivers like driving, even if they don't like driving in traffic. It's mostly convenience, but privacy, self-expression, and personal space are also factors. There are significant financial incentives for self-driving trucks. No need to train and pay drivers, though it may still be good to keep a low-wage rider to monitor the truck and help with loading and unloading. Insurance will eventually be less because drivers aren't texting or falling asleep behind the wheel. Fuel will probably be less because the trucks will probably optimize fuel consumption as part of their programming. Some busier highways will probably require self-driving vehicles eventually, meaning trucks will need to be self-driving to use those roadways.

We had speech recognition working in test in 1982. Siri was released in what? 2012? Alexa still doesn't get "The Doors eponous first album" or "The Doors The Doors" at least when I say it.

"Self Driving cars" and "autonomous large trucks that can reliably share the road with other vehicles under less than ideal conditions" are not necessarily the same thing, but we will get there, but it might be 2050. On the other hand, if the driverless trucks all reliably got themselves to or from a truck center in Lodi or Gilroy or Dixon or and the human drivers all jockeyed them from there, it might certainly be an improvement in both safety and trucker's lives.

What would be the penalty for non-compliance? 10% reduction in federal highway funding?

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 11, 2019, 12:19:41 PMWhat would be the penalty for non-compliance? 10% reduction in federal highway funding?

IIRC, back in the bad old days of the National Speed Limit(s); it was withholding of all federal highway funding in a particular state for non-compliance.  A similar penalty still exists today for states not complying with the minimum drinking age of 21.

Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks? I say leave it the way it is. It's going to cause more weaving and accidents and we don't want that to happen.  :banghead: :banghead:

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:32:38 PM
Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

For one thing, it takes a significantly longer time for a truck to come to a stop than for a passenger vehicle to come to a stop.  At a driving safety presentation back when I drove a box truck for a living, I remember the presenter saying that the "two second rule" should be used as per ten feet of vehicle length.

^ As in 2 seconds for every 10 feet of your truck length?

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:32:38 PM
Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

If I'm not mistaken, it's a proposed truck speed limit, not a done deal. Politicians propose things all the time and the majority of those proposals never become law.

Quote from: kphoger on July 26, 2019, 02:34:04 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:32:38 PM
Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

For one thing, it takes a significantly longer time for a truck to come to a stop than for a passenger vehicle to come to a stop.  At a driving safety presentation back when I drove a box truck for a living, I remember the presenter saying that the "two second rule" should be used as per ten feet of vehicle length.

A full trailer and cab is upwards of around 70 feet.  At 2 seconds per 10 feet, you're leaving 14 seconds, or nearly a 1/4 mile between the truck and the vehicle in front.  It's a totally unrealistic expectation, and if presented in that format, the presenter would've been laughed out of the room.

Trucks governor-locked at 105 km/h (65 mph) is already in force in Quebec and Ontario provinces in Canada.  Just take a ride on the ON-401, and enjoy; trucks passings on miles and miles... and miles!

The problem is almost all trucks and semis are going 65 mph, so the difference in speed is within what we can call the "error-margin" (between 64 and 66 mph), so a passing can take about like 2 miles, or maybe longer (depending on curves, little hills, etc., even the wind!), and the rest of the traffic is waiting behind the two trucks, until the passing is over.

Have fun!

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2019, 10:27:36 AM

Quote from: kphoger on July 26, 2019, 02:34:04 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:32:38 PM
Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

For one thing, it takes a significantly longer time for a truck to come to a stop than for a passenger vehicle to come to a stop.  At a driving safety presentation back when I drove a box truck for a living, I remember the presenter saying that the "two second rule" should be used as per ten feet of vehicle length.

A full trailer and cab is upwards of around 70 feet.  At 2 seconds per 10 feet, you're leaving 14 seconds, or nearly a 1/4 mile between the truck and the vehicle in front.  It's a totally unrealistic expectation, and if presented in that format, the presenter would've been laughed out of the room.

Yes, I know it's completely unrealistic.  I also think (and you do too, IIRC) that the two-second rule is unrealistic to begin with.  But my point is that it takes substantially longer for a loaded 18-wheeler to come to a complete stop from highway cruising speed than, say, a Toyota Camry.

A tractor-trailer weighing in at 40 tons takes approximately 525 feet to come to a complete stop from 65 mph.  That stopping distance shrinks by about 30% when coming from 60 mph instead of 65.

Why does there have to be a law for trucks to be governed to 65mph? What's the point? I don't get it.

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:31:49 PM
Why does there have to be a law for trucks to be governed to 65mph? What's the point? I don't get it.

I would start on page 1.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 06:36:23 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:31:49 PM
Why does there have to be a law for trucks to be governed to 65mph? What's the point? I don't get it.

I would start on page 1.

QuoteIn my opinion, this isn't a good idea. A law like this creates a large speed differential between trucks and cars, which tends to cause crashes, especially in western states which have 75 or 80 mph limits otherwise.

Yeah I agree with him. It's not a good idea to lower the governor. If anything, maybe 75 mph. not 65.

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:39:04 PM
Yeah I agree with him. It's not a good idea to lower the governor. If anything, maybe 75 mph. not 65.

But how many trucks can realistically maintain 75mph? How many cross-country trucks are governed below that? The idea with 65 would be to nationalise a maximum speed for trucks, so that there is little differential in speed among trucks.

The way I see it, unless we can somehow find a way to get trucks going the same speed as cars on freeways (not realistic in rural areas), we may as well find a maximum limit that all trucks are capable of. 65 seems reasonable to me. Yes, the rest of traffic will be going faster than them, but there won't be as much variation among trucks, which may potentially be safer.

In WA (where I am most of the time), trucks are limited to 60mph. This works well on rural freeways, as most trucks are all going 60 as they are mostly all capable of those speeds. Yes, there's the occasional blockage created by a passing truck, but it's pretty rare (I guess most truckers out west aren't morons?). In British Columbia, where the maximum limit for all vehicles is 120 km/h (~75mph), the trucking association refuses to endorse the limits, so most trucks travel below 120. But they don't have to, and those that are comfortable at 120 proceed at those speeds. So you end up having a lot of variation among trucks.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 08:44:41 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 06:39:04 PM
Yeah I agree with him. It's not a good idea to lower the governor. If anything, maybe 75 mph. not 65.

But how many trucks can realistically maintain 75mph? How many cross-country trucks are governed below that? The idea with 65 would be to nationalise a maximum speed for trucks, so that there is little differential in speed among trucks.

The way I see it, unless we can somehow find a way to get trucks going the same speed as cars on freeways (not realistic in rural areas), we may as well find a maximum limit that all trucks are capable of. 65 seems reasonable to me. Yes, the rest of traffic will be going faster than them, but there won't be as much variation among trucks, which may potentially be safer.

In WA (where I am most of the time), trucks are limited to 60mph. This works well on rural freeways, as most trucks are all going 60 as they are mostly all capable of those speeds. Yes, there's the occasional blockage created by a passing truck, but it's pretty rare (I guess most truckers out west aren't morons?). In British Columbia, where the maximum limit for all vehicles is 120 km/h (~75mph), the trucking association refuses to endorse the limits, so most trucks travel below 120. But they don't have to, and those that are comfortable at 120 proceed at those speeds. So you end up having a lot of variation among trucks.

I wouldn't support any govern on trucks. It's not safer, it creates more hazardous conditions, especially when a truck going 65 mph is passing a truck going 64.9 mph. That truck doing 65 mph knows he could easily do 70 mph and get right past him, but his govern is locking him. That's the issue.

It's been proven time and time again having a speed differential between trucks and cars is hazardous, and quite frankly should never happen. If a truck can easily do 70 or 75 mph and the speed limit is 70 or 75 mph, there's no issues with that. Restricting them to 65 mph is silly.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:01:46 PM
I wouldn't support any govern on trucks. It's not safer, it creates more hazardous conditions, especially when a truck going 65 mph is passing a truck going 64.9 mph. That truck doing 65 mph knows he could easily do 70 mph and get right past him, but his govern is locking him. That's the issue.

That's not hazardous at all. Two vehicles and a line of cars behind them all going the same speed sounds quite safe to me. That's zero speed differential.

All you're saying is that you're annoyed by an unobservant truck driver. There's no reasonably hazardous situation created by two trucks passing at a slow rate. It's very common in Europe, and their road network has a remarkable safety record.

By promoting a single speed limit, you are ostensibly supporting all trucks going 70 or 75. But many states have governors for fuel or other reasons, so you'll still have a bunch of variation, which according to you:

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:01:46 PM
is hazardous, and quite frankly should never happen.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 09:20:01 PM
That's not hazardous at all. Two vehicles and a line of cars behind them all going the same speed sounds quite safe to me. That's zero speed differential.

It is hazardous. You're forcing vehicles to slow down from the speed limit (70 - 75 mph) down to 65 mph sitting behind this truck having no way around. In theory, it's all safe, until you have impatient drivers tailgating and performing unsafe maneuvers, etc. Yes, those unsafe maneuvers may be illegal, but people will still do it (that's just a fact) and the likelihood of a wreck is a lot higher.

I've always been again speed differentials and I will continue to be. Many would agree. It's dangerous. That's just the fact of the matter.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 09:20:01 PM
By promoting a single speed limit, you are ostensibly supporting all trucks going 70 or 75. But many states have governors for fuel or other reasons, so you'll still have a bunch of variation, which according to you:

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:01:46 PM
is hazardous, and quite frankly should never happen.

Yes, I understand governs exist on some trucks nowadays, and states have slower speed limits (infamously California still having 55 mph for trucks, which is almost never obeyed). I don't agree with those either, but the trucks that aren't governed, the majority of states that don't have truck speed limits, and the independent truckers who aren't governed - they should be able to keep that and not be forced onto some universal truck speed limit system. That's my issue.

Except in the mountains. But for a flat area like Greenville NC, and the west, they should go faster than 55.

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 09:44:31 PM
Except in the mountains. But for a flat area like Greenville NC, and the west, they should go faster than 55.

Whatever the roadway can handle, I'm for it.

A lot of roads can handle a truck doing 70 - 75 mph, and they should be permitted to be. Forcing them lower has no merit and is unsafe.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:46:38 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 09:44:31 PM
Except in the mountains. But for a flat area like Greenville NC, and the west, they should go faster than 55.

Whatever the roadway can handle, I'm for it.

A lot of roads can handle a truck doing 70 - 75 mph, and they should be permitted to be. Forcing them lower has no merit and is unsafe.

Yeah. I get it. I meant to say 65 mph by the way. Same thing with school buses. In North Carolina they are limited to 45 mph. I might have to make a new thread on that.

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 09:49:15 PM
Same thing with school buses. In North Carolina they are limited to 45 mph. I might have to make a new thread on that.

I believe in Virginia they are limited to 45 mph as well, but if the speed limit is 60, 65, or 70 mph, they are permitted to do 60 mph.

I get capping it at 60 mph, but if the speed limit is 55 mph, why can't they do 55 mph? Why this 45 mph speed limit cap, but if it's 60 mph or higher, they can do 60 mph? It's an illogical law IMO.

There's no governor on them though. I've seen school buses in Virginia doing 65-70 mph before on highways, usually keeping up with the flow of traffic.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:53:49 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 09:49:15 PM
Same thing with school buses. In North Carolina they are limited to 45 mph. I might have to make a new thread on that.

I believe in Virginia they are limited to 45 mph as well, but if the speed limit is 60, 65, or 70 mph, they are permitted to do 60 mph.

I get capping it at 60 mph, but if the speed limit is 55 mph, why can't they do 55 mph? Why this 45 mph speed limit cap, but if it's 60 mph or higher, they can do 60 mph? It's an illogical law IMO.

There's no governor on them though. I've seen school buses in Virginia doing 65-70 mph before on highways, usually keeping up with the flow of traffic.

Yeah. In North Carolina they have to do 45 mph no matter where they are. I'm making a new thread and keep this thread about trucks.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:42:43 PM
It is hazardous. You're forcing vehicles to slow down from the speed limit (70 - 75 mph) down to 65 mph sitting behind this truck having no way around. In theory, it's all safe, until you have impatient drivers tailgating and performing unsafe maneuvers, etc.

Even at 70 or 75, you're going to have those same slow-speed passing maneuvers that you'd have at 65. Except, now, you have trucks who can't even go 70 or 75 (due to governors). That's more differential than if the limit was 65.

Aren't you against speed differentials? Or are you most scared by tailgating/"unsafe maneuvers"?

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 09:20:01 PM
That's not hazardous at all. Two vehicles and a line of cars behind them all going the same speed sounds quite safe to me. That's zero speed differential.

All you're saying is that you're annoyed by an unobservant truck driver. There's no reasonably hazardous situation created by two trucks passing at a slow rate. It's very common in Europe, and their road network has a remarkable safety record.

For some reason, whenever I see the phrase "That's not (fill in the blank) at all!", I automatically assume it is being said sarcastically. That was especially the case here, but after doing a double take and re-reading, I realized you were probably serious.

As a matter of principle, I think it's highly undesirable to have trucks micro-passing. On narrow roads like the PA turnpike, it would take little more than a gust of wind to blow one truck into the other. But the bigger (and more relevant) hazard is the problem it creates for cars behind the two trucks. Tailgating, left lane camping (both percieved and in reality), and road rage are inevitably going to ensue. You'll have people weaving their way up to the front of the line, cutting in, encouraging others to tailgate, and so on. It's all-around a bad situation, and thus it must be acknowledged that a speed differential between lanes is essential to the smooth operations of a freeway.

I am not opposed to trucks traveling at a more uniform speed, but I'm not convinced that governing them all to a certain speed is the right solution. It would only produce the intended result if they were simultaneously banned from passing one another, which seems equally impractical. And I don't think slower passing, but less often, is an acceptable compromise, for the reasons stated above.

Part of me wonders if the real intent of this proposal is to slow down the independent operators so that they won't be able to deliver a load faster than the big fleets with governors... basically a way to use the law to alter the market under the pretence of safety.  Another part of me wonders if the backers of the proposal are actually waiting for the inevitable issues to occur so they can point to them and advocate for a return to the NMSL.

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2019, 10:59:54 PM
Part of me wonders if the real intent of this proposal is to slow down the independent operators so that they won't be able to deliver a load faster than the big fleets with governors... basically a way to use the law to alter the market under the pretence of safety.  Another part of me wonders if the backers of the proposal are actually waiting for the inevitable issues to occur so they can point to them and advocate for a return to the NMSL.

NMSL would be a joke if it happened again.

Quote from: vdeane on July 27, 2019, 10:59:54 PM
Part of me wonders if the real intent of this proposal is to slow down the independent operators so that they won't be able to deliver a load faster than the big fleets with governors... basically a way to use the law to alter the market under the pretence of safety.

It's worth noting that the American Truckers Association supports this 65 MPH limit but both the National Motorists Association and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association oppose it (https://www.motorists.org/press/nma-and-ooida-dispute-split-speed-limit-safety-claims-by-american-trucking-associations/).

I have to admit I could only make it through 3 pages of this thread to get the basic camps of thought.

The idea that it would be ok to FORBID trucks from using anything but the right lane of a 2 or 3 lane freeway is absurd.  When a truck carrying 80K pounds is only going 45 or 50 by the end of even a modest upgrade there needs to be a better reason that 'it would slow me down in my car a minute or two' to say that OTHER trucks which are NOT hauling 80K pounds and can maintain a better speed should just sit there and plod along behind the slowest truck on the road.  Furthermore, trucks, far more than cars NEED to maintain momentum.  You think a 4 cylinder car takes a long time to go from 40 to 70 MPH, imagine doing it in a semi.  Even doing it in a moving van or towing a boat is torture and those vehicles almost certainly have better weight to horsepower ratios.

Also, states like Oregon with a 55 MPH truck speed limit basically end up with two lame outcomes that BOTH happen as status quo...
1) a lot of trucks just ignore the truck speed limit
2) cars almost never use the right lane

The result is extremely aggravating.  When one truck passes another with a 1 or 2 MPH speed differential that is annoying but it's very often the result of the truck's abilities.  When 2 cars or unladen pickups drive side by side for miles its because neither driver was aware enough or willing to take any initiative to do any better.  And guess which of these most of us probably see more often each day?  In my experience, states with 1 speed limit for all vehicles are FAR nicer and higher speed places to traverse than those with more than 5 MPH difference in speed limits.  And that isn't to say that there aren't places where trucks aren't a real irritation grinding their way up some hills (I-78 between PA line and I-287 in NJ is a heavy traffic example that has this issue every single day) but I think that the ability for freight to move and for an OTR driver to make it to their destination in a somewhat timely manner is at least as important as my wish to hurry home or to work.  After all, my commute is just part of getting to work but that drive IS their work.  All day long.

Quote from: kphoger on July 26, 2019, 02:34:04 PM

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:32:38 PM
Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

For one thing, it takes a significantly longer time for a truck to come to a stop than for a passenger vehicle to come to a stop.  At a driving safety presentation back when I drove a box truck for a living, I remember the presenter saying that the "two second rule" should be used as per ten feet of vehicle length.

Yes but drivers in a Semi truck can see a LOT further than even the tallest SUV drivers.  When I went for a ride in a semi I was amazed what a calm experience it was.  You aren't surprised very often and you can often see 'the problem person' way far ahead of actually being near it etc.  If stopping distances were the cause of a majority of truck accidents there would be a lot more trucks running cars over than cars rear ending trucks.  I don't know what the rate of either incident is but neither seems like an epidemic and both can often be traced to distraction as much as speed.  I guess I'm dubious that when trucks hit slowed or stopped traffic that it is very often a matter of the truck was already applying maximum braking force and just couldn't slow down in time.  They can see a long ways in front of them and most of the time even with their modest braking power they do just fine.  If it was just a matter of physics differences, normal passenger cars would almost NEVER hit each other in that way.  But they do.

^People driving cars can see just as far ahead as truckers. The difference is that it only feels more natural to look ahead like that in a semi. People in cars are tempted only to look at the bumper in front of them but that needs not be the case. Just look up and far on your own and try to keep your visual path clear. After a short while it becomes natural and you will feel scared to drive the old way. All race car drivers do and know this. This is also the reason the SUV "visibility" selling point is a lie and leads them to tailgate lower vehicles needlessly simply because they can.

Quote from: GCrites80s on August 21, 2019, 09:32:50 PM
^People driving cars can see just as far ahead as truckers. The difference is that it only feels more natural to look ahead like that in a semi. People in cars are tempted only to look at the bumper in front of them but that needs not be the case. Just look up and far on your own and try to keep your visual path clear. After a short while it becomes natural and you will feel scared to drive the old way. All race car drivers do and know this. This is also the reason the SUV "visibility" selling point is a lie and leads them to tailgate lower vehicles needlessly simply because they can.

I can't see as far on a sedan as on a vehicle higher up if there's anything larger than a sedan in front of me.  Trucks are especially bad.  Making sure you're never behind anything larger than your vehicle is not always practical.

Quote from: GCrites80s on August 21, 2019, 09:32:50 PM
^People driving cars can see just as far ahead as truckers. The difference is that it only feels more natural to look ahead like that in a semi. People in cars are tempted only to look at the bumper in front of them but that needs not be the case. Just look up and far on your own and try to keep your visual path clear. After a short while it becomes natural and you will feel scared to drive the old way. All race car drivers do and know this. This is also the reason the SUV "visibility" selling point is a lie and leads them to tailgate lower vehicles needlessly simply because they can.

Race car drivers also drive 4 inches behind the vehicle in front of them, are on a closed course, pretty much know what the maneuvers will be of the traffic around them, have instant communication with their crew on what other vehicles are doing, and don't have to worry about traffic lights, trucks, stop signs, pedestrians, bikes, driveways, cell phones, and everything else normal drivers encounter.

If they do crash, they're not going to be cited by the police for going 180 mph tailgating the guy in front of them.  They're going to take their car back, have their crewmen work on it and get it ready for the next race, with funds coming from their numerous sponsors.

The vast majority of race car laps turned do not take place in top-level races of NASCAR, Indy and F1 where people don't have spotters, unlimited budgets and pro licenses. Look ahead as far as you can in your street car and there will never be an advantage to driving something "tall" because even if you are "tall" someone else tall will be in front of you too often until SUVs become as uncool as woody wagons... which has arguably already begun to happen to the full-size body-on-frame models.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:42:43 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 09:20:01 PM
That's not hazardous at all. Two vehicles and a line of cars behind them all going the same speed sounds quite safe to me. That's zero speed differential.

It is hazardous. You're forcing vehicles to slow down from the speed limit (70 - 75 mph) down to 65 mph sitting behind this truck having no way around. In theory, it's all safe, until you have impatient drivers tailgating and performing unsafe maneuvers, etc. Yes, those unsafe maneuvers may be illegal, but people will still do it (that's just a fact) and the likelihood of a wreck is a lot higher.

I've always been again speed differentials and I will continue to be. Many would agree. It's dangerous. That's just the fact of the matter.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 09:20:01 PM
By promoting a single speed limit, you are ostensibly supporting all trucks going 70 or 75. But many states have governors for fuel or other reasons, so you'll still have a bunch of variation, which according to you:

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 09:01:46 PM
is hazardous, and quite frankly should never happen.

Yes, I understand governs exist on some trucks nowadays, and states have slower speed limits (infamously California still having 55 mph for trucks, which is almost never obeyed). I don't agree with those either, but the trucks that aren't governed, the majority of states that don't have truck speed limits, and the independent truckers who aren't governed - they should be able to keep that and not be forced onto some universal truck speed limit system. That's my issue.

In Germany, trucks are simply not allowed on Autobahnen except at night. That simply won't fly in the US where we insist on same-day or next-day delivery from Amazon. Whenever possible, it would be ideal for trucks to have a separate roadway from other vehicles. The cost of that (except to avoid a lot of "trucks in the wrong lane" bypasses) is prohibitive. So, what can we do? Well, California gives trucks a lower maximum speed. I am not sure that it is necessary, but, it also restricts them to the right lane. That's the next best thing to giving them their own roadway. Cars mostly say out of the left lane when trucks are around. Trucks mostly stay out of the farther left lanes when cars are around. I'd like to see more tickets for trucks not in the right lane and I'd like to see more tickets for cars cutting off trucks and using the right lane to cut in.

But, as I have said before, we need to keep trucks moving and trucks need not to hold up the show for other vehicles. Trucks that can't go 70 MPH don't belong in a lane where cars can legally go that speed (and flow of traffic is often a good bit faster).

What I see on I-5 is that there are a large number of trucks in the right lane going 65-70MPH (in a 55 MPH max zone), just humming along trying to get their loads to the place where their loads belong and they become hindered by a truck (often fully loaded and possibly with some mildly hazardous materials) that barely is able to go 55MPH. So, the trucker gets annoyed as many of us would about Overloaded Overstock holding up the show. If I have to go 54 all of the way to Sacramento, it will take me more than an hour longer than I have allowed. The loaders will have gone home. I won't get a good seat in the poker game. My wife will have gone to work. I will miss Oprah. Whatever. So, trucker finds what looks to be a hole in the left lane stream and starts to move into it. Of course, within seconds, Fast Eddie (in his Viper) has closed the imaginary gap. Monster Mich and Joe Cool are right behind him and start to get annoyed even more so at Eddie for letting the trucker in and even before the trucker has moved all of the way into the left lane. Now, because Over has slowed the trucker down to 54 MPH, it takes a little while for trucker to get up to his normal 65-70 and he may even go just a bit faster to get the pass over with before Eddie, Joe, and Mich open fire on the trucker with automatic weapons, but the guy in front of Overstock hasn't yet seen the clear space, so trucker either has to pass him as well or has to wait while he creates the gap. In the two or three minutes that this takes, the left lane gets backed up in ripples all of the way back to the I-5/CASR-99 split.

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
In Germany, trucks are simply not allowed on Autobahnen except at night.

Umm.  That doesn't sound correct.

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
CASR-99

Why do you use the "SR" abbreviation, in addition to "CA"? "CA" is equivalent to "US" or "I". Seems a little redundant.

I'm not trying to be picky, but I keep reading it as "casser" before I remember what it is you mean.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 09:46:28 PM

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
CASR-99

Why do you use the "SR" abbreviation, in addition to "CA"? "CA" is equivalent to "US" or "I". Seems a little redundant.

I'm not trying to be picky, but I keep reading it as "casser" before I remember what it is you mean.

My tendency would be just to use "SR". But, not everyone lives in Calirfornia. Can I just use "CR-G4"? No, it has to be "SCCR-G4" or more properly "SCLCR-G4". Would you prefer "SCL-G4"?

I've seen Nevada DoT use CASR-89 (or maybe "CA SR 89") on VMS to refer to the road when it needs to warn motorists about stuff happening over on the California side.

Quote from: michravera on August 26, 2019, 10:29:41 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 09:46:28 PM

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
CASR-99

Why do you use the "SR" abbreviation, in addition to "CA"? "CA" is equivalent to "US" or "I". Seems a little redundant.

I'm not trying to be picky, but I keep reading it as "casser" before I remember what it is you mean.

My tendency would be just to use "SR". But, not everyone lives in Calirfornia. Can I just use "CR-G4"? No, it has to be "SCCR-G4" or more properly "SCLCR-G4". Would you prefer "SCL-G4"?

I've seen Nevada DoT use CASR-89 (or maybe "CA SR 89") on VMS to refer to the road when it needs to warn motorists about stuff happening over on the California side.

I think the county routes are a different situation that would call for something more unique (along the lines of your suggestion).

In the case of state routes, it's understood that "[state abbreviation-route number]" is the equivalent of "SR". When I'm talking about a WA state route with someone else from WA, I wouldn't likely write "WA-16", instead opting for "Hwy 16" or "SR-16". But I would use "WA-16" when talking to someone not from Washington; I could write "WASR-16" but "WA" is an equivalent to "SR". It would be like writing "SRSR-16".

I suspect those VMS signs likely used "CA SR" as separate words, primarily to distinguish from "NV SR" (if that's a term that's used), although I would still consider both redundant.

Quote from: kphoger on August 25, 2019, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
In Germany, trucks are simply not allowed on Autobahnen except at night.

Umm.  That doesn't sound correct.

Can anyone confirm that this is not actually true?  I remember trucks on the Autobahn during the day, but I haven't been there since the 1990s.

Quote from: kphoger on August 25, 2019, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
In Germany, trucks are simply not allowed on Autobahnen except at night.

Umm.  That doesn't sound correct.

There's Germany Jens to debunk that. He only drives during the (European) day, and I've seen him on the Autobahn.

Quote from: kphoger on August 26, 2019, 01:58:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 25, 2019, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
In Germany, trucks are simply not allowed on Autobahnen except at night.

Umm.  That doesn't sound correct.

Can anyone confirm that this is not actually true?  I remember trucks on the Autobahn during the day, but I haven't been there since the 1990s.

Best I can do is Google Maps satellite view which shows trucks all over the place. For example:

(https://i.imgur.com/ljoH0sE.png)

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 26, 2019, 03:41:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 26, 2019, 01:58:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 25, 2019, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: michravera on August 25, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
In Germany, trucks are simply not allowed on Autobahnen except at night.

Umm.  That doesn't sound correct.

Can anyone confirm that this is not actually true?  I remember trucks on the Autobahn during the day, but I haven't been there since the 1990s.

Best I can do is Google Maps satellite view which shows trucks all over the place. For example:

(https://i.imgur.com/ljoH0sE.png)

Maybe I was told wrong. I've been to Germany but never drove there. It looks like the current ban for trucks is on SUNDAY day times.

In Germany, all vehicles over 7.5 metric tons are not allowed to operate from midnight to 10 PM on Sundays or public holidays, with a few exceptions. And in addition, during July and August some busier motorway sections ban trucks between 7 AM and 8 PM.

https://trans.info/en/bans-for-trucks-in-germany-in-2019-121175

Quote from: US 89 on August 26, 2019, 06:26:36 PM
In Germany, all vehicles over 7.5 metric tons are not allowed to operate from midnight to 10 PM on Sundays or public holidays, with a few exceptions. And in addition, during July and August some busier motorway sections ban trucks between 7 AM and 8 PM.

https://trans.info/en/bans-for-trucks-in-germany-in-2019-121175

Edited for clarity.

I'm against speed limits for trucks. They should go the same speed limit cars do at driver discretion. Now training on the other hand needs to be improved.

Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2019, 07:03:41 PM
Something none of you have considered regarding trucks, regulators, and truck speed:  fuel economy.  According to fleetowner.com (https://www.fleetowner.com/fuel_economy/fuel-economy-0701), a truck traveling at 75 mph consumes 27% more fuel than one going 65 mph..  That's a huge difference, and is one big reason why most fleet vehicles have regulators and the industry as a whole supports regulators.

Is saving money on fuel worth the lives that will no doubt be lost?

Quote from: bugo on August 29, 2019, 06:54:28 AM

Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2019, 07:03:41 PM
Something none of you have considered regarding trucks, regulators, and truck speed:  fuel economy.  According to fleetowner.com (https://www.fleetowner.com/fuel_economy/fuel-economy-0701), a truck traveling at 75 mph consumes 27% more fuel than one going 65 mph..  That's a huge difference, and is one big reason why most fleet vehicles have regulators and the industry as a whole supports regulators.

Is saving money on fuel worth the lives that will no doubt be lost?

Being that regulators have been used for years, can you please tell us how many lives have been lost over the past several years to these regulators?

My recent drive on I-75, I-40, and I-81 in Tennessee and Virginia has really shown me maybe trucks do need limiters. I'm usually against these type of regulations, but with the amount of inexperienced drivers out there who think they could do 70+ mph through mountainous terrain and 65 mph speed limits, tailgating, micro-passing for miles, not maintaining lanes, swerving (all of which I saw on I-81, especially thru the mountain north of Christiansburg heading north), there needs to be some restriction.

One solution could to be restrict newer drivers who are more inexperienced to slower speeds, and take away the restrictions or bump it to 70 - 75 mph on the more experienced drivers, but the issue with that is owner-operator trucks.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 29, 2019, 03:32:36 PM
My recent drive on I-75, I-40, and I-81 in Tennessee and Virginia has really shown me maybe trucks do need limiters. I'm usually against these type of regulations, but with the amount of inexperienced drivers out there who think they could do 70+ mph through mountainous terrain and 65 mph speed limits, tailgating, micro-passing for miles, not maintaining lanes, swerving (all of which I saw on I-81, especially thru the mountain north of Christiansburg heading north), there needs to be some restriction.

One solution could to be restrict newer drivers who are more inexperienced to slower speeds, and take away the restrictions or bump it to 70 - 75 mph on the more experienced drivers, but the issue with that is owner-operator trucks.

I don't see how the solution resolves any of the issues you presented.