Proposed nationwide 65mph truck limit

[Richard3]

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!

[kphoger]

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.

[tolbs17]

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

[jakeroot]

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.

[tolbs17]

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.

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.

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

[jakeroot]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[jakeroot]

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:

is hazardous, and quite frankly should never happen.

[sprjus4]

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.

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:

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.

[tolbs17]

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

[sprjus4]

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.

[tolbs17]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[tolbs17]

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.

[jakeroot]

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"?

[webny99]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[bemybear]

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.

[bemybear]

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.

[GCrites]

^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.

[vdeane]

^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.

[jeffandnicole]

^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.

[GCrites]

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.