IDOT to permit transport of hay on interstates

[hbelkins]

As Jake points out, hay is intrinsically less troublesome than gravel and other heavy materials which can do actual damage to vehicle bodies.

Tell that to my Vue. I was unfortunate enough to hit a nearly-intact bale of hay on the Bluegrass Parkway, just shy of its terminus at US 60, on my way back from the 2008 Nashville road meet. A few bales had fallen off a truck hauling hay, and I was not able to avoid hitting it. It cracked the plastic "splitter" (for lack of a better term) underneath the front bumper. No functional damage, although the smell of burning hay hitting my hot front brake rotors was pretty pungent when I pulled over to check on the damage.

As for covered loads, Kentucky passed a tarp law for coal trucks 30 years ago or thereabouts. It's certainly been beneficial in preventing vehicle damage. Prior to that, the shoulders of the Mountain Parkway were awash in coal that had come off the trucks that used that route to haul to power plants in central Kentucky.

[bugo]

Once my dad was hauling a bunch of hay in his '66 Ford F100 pickup truck on AR 8 and we turned a corner in Mena and a bunch of the hay fell off the truck.  He did have it overloaded.  We got the hay out of the street as quickly as we could and drove the 2 miles or so to the farm. 

Hauling hay sucks.  You get hay in your eyes and all over your arms.  You ruin your clothes.  You itch for days. 

Allowing hay trucks on freeways is a terrible idea. 

[kphoger]

If the scenario you are talking about is one in which hay haulers are banned from Interstates unless they use tarps, then I am not sure how amortization would happen, since putting on and taking off a tarp are recurrent costs.  I am not even sure that the typical length of haul for a hay load is long enough for the cumulative annoyance of drivers (which we can estimate to be proportional to the hay that is lost, say a set mass per mile due to wind buffeting) to exceed the time and motion costs of laying and then removing a tarp.

Ah.  I wasn't thinking of the act of putting on a tarp in terms of cost.  My mind generally doesn't work that way when it comes to farming.  All I was considering was the initial cost of the tarps and straps, which would be (more or less) one-time expenses.  But the same argument could go for gravel, coal, and lumber trucks, and I'm still in favor of those being tarped rather than prohibited.  How about crushed vehicles?

As Jake points out, hay is intrinsically less troublesome than gravel and other heavy materials which can do actual damage to vehicle bodies.

A coworker of mine was on the phone with me from Omaha a few hours ago, when he encountered a stationary bicycle in the center lane of the Interstate.  That one almost takes the cake as far as potential damage goes.  And old boss of mine once had a trailer-sized sheet of slate come loose from the truck in front of him and fly right over his car.

[agentsteel53]

A coworker of mine was on the phone with me from Omaha a few hours ago, when he encountered a stationary bicycle in the center lane of the Interstate.  That one almost takes the cake as far as potential damage goes.  And old boss of mine once had a trailer-sized sheet of slate come loose from the truck in front of him and fly right over his car.

I've encountered a car!  parked in the #1 lane, all lights off, in the middle of the night.  what an asshole!

[vdeane]

While the car should be parked in the shoulder, if you're not moving, it's actually better to have your lights off, so that another driver doesn't use your tail lights as an indicator of where the lane is and rear end you.

[Special K]

While the car should be parked in the shoulder, if you're not moving, it's actually better to have your lights off, so that another driver doesn't use your tail lights as an indicator of where the lane is and rear end you.

+1.  Much better not to be able to see the car in the first place.  That will save you from braking before you hit the car.

[kphoger]

While the car should be parked in the shoulder, if you're not moving, it's actually better to have your lights off, so that another driver doesn't use your tail lights as an indicator of where the lane is and rear end you.

+1.  Much better not to be able to see the car in the first place.  That will save you from braking before you hit the car.

Parked cars are like speed bumps.  The less you slow down, the less you feel them.

[Mr. Matté]

While the car should be parked in the shoulder, if you're not moving, it's actually better to have your lights off, so that another driver doesn't use your tail lights as an indicator of where the lane is and rear end you.

Not even 4-way flashers?

[bugo]

One day a few years ago, I was driving down I-44 in Tulsa.  There was a truck ahead of me that was loaded with a bunch of stuff.  Suddenly, a mattress flew out of the truck and I hit it square on.  Luckily, I didn't find any damage on my car, but it was scary.

[hbelkins]

The more you drive, the more crap you see in the road. I once saw an extension ladder in the middle of I-75/I-64 in Lexington. Thankfully it was not in my lane. If not for the fact that there were three busy lanes of traffic and I didn't have anything to haul it in, I woud have got out and gotten it for myself.

[Takumi]

I encountered this in Suffolk a couple months ago. I thought it was a small fridge at the time.

[hbelkins]

Looks like a styrofoam block, or one of those archery targets.

[kphoger]

The point is, there's all sorts of crap on the roads out there.  Dirt falls out of trucks, but that doesn't mean hauling dirt should be prohibited.  When things aren't secured properly, crap falls onto the road; I've also encountered a mattress on a highway, taking up a full lane on a two-lane road with no shoulders.  Hay bales should be no different.

Hay prohibited on Interstates:  Slight inconvenience to farmers, slight convenience to other drivers.
Hay allowed on Interstates:  Slight convenience to farmers, slight inconvenience to other drivers.
Hay allowed on Interstates, tarps required:  Farmers are offered a choice, no inconenience to other drivers.

Requiring tarps would be more expensive than not requiring them at all, as J N Winkler pointed out.  But it's still no worse than prohibiting the hay traffic completely.  And, if a farming operation decides to shell out the money for the tarps, then they would have more freedom than the normal law currently allows.  I still see it as a win-win.

[vdeane]

While the car should be parked in the shoulder, if you're not moving, it's actually better to have your lights off, so that another driver doesn't use your tail lights as an indicator of where the lane is and rear end you.

+1.  Much better not to be able to see the car in the first place.  That will save you from braking before you hit the car.

As I said, he should have been on the shoulder (I guess you missed that part); the idea behind having the lights off is so that drivers on the road don't think that you're traveling at the same speed they are and that they should be following you when you're stopped.  When it's hard to see the lane markings, drivers tend to just follow the tail lights in front of them instead.

[Special K]

While the car should be parked in the shoulder, if you're not moving, it's actually better to have your lights off, so that another driver doesn't use your tail lights as an indicator of where the lane is and rear end you.

+1.  Much better not to be able to see the car in the first place.  That will save you from braking before you hit the car.

As I said, he should have been on the shoulder (I guess you missed that part)...

You were advocating leaving your lights off regardless of whether you're on the shoulder or not.  Correct?

[vdeane]

Again, you missed the part where I said "he should have been on the shoulder".  Nobody can possibly comment on what someone parked in a travel lane should do because the idea is so obviously stupid.

[Special K]

Again, you missed the part where I said "he should have been on the shoulder".  Nobody can possibly comment on what someone parked in a travel lane should do because the idea is so obviously stupid.

You said "while he should be on the shoulder".  Using "while" in this way is the same as saying "Even though".  That makes your second statement apply to either situation.  I'm not the only one who was confused by your statement.

[Special K]

Looks like a styrofoam block, or one of those archery targets.

Or a styrofoam cooler used for harvested organ transport.

[vdeane]

Again, you missed the part where I said "he should have been on the shoulder".  Nobody can possibly comment on what someone parked in a travel lane should do because the idea is so obviously stupid.

You said "while he should be on the shoulder".  Using "while" in this way is the same as saying "Even though".  That makes your second statement apply to either situation.  I'm not the only one who was confused by your statement.

You're the only one expressing confusion.

I think you and I think very differently.  Since I have Asperger's Syndrome, my brain does process information differently than most people, and I'm not very good at translating my thoughts into what "normal" people would think.

[Special K]

Again, you missed the part where I said "he should have been on the shoulder".  Nobody can possibly comment on what someone parked in a travel lane should do because the idea is so obviously stupid.

You said "while he should be on the shoulder".  Using "while" in this way is the same as saying "Even though".  That makes your second statement apply to either situation.  I'm not the only one who was confused by your statement.

You're the only one expressing confusion.

I think you and I think very differently.  Since I have Asperger's Syndrome, my brain does process information differently than most people, and I'm not very good at translating my thoughts into what "normal" people would think.

Ah.  We will speak no more of this.

[agentsteel53]

what the Hell are you guys arguing about?  I never mentioned anything about a car being on the shoulder.

I noted that I once almost ran into a car parked in the travel lane.  as in, the #1 lane.  as in, where vehicles expect to be doing 75mph safely.

I wish he had kept his lights on while parked like a dumb fuck.

but, more significantly, I wish he had found a significantly less asinine place to park his worthless drunken cockpunching hind!

you may now go back to picking nits about cars parked legally on the shoulder.

[Special K]

what the Hell are you guys arguing about?  I never mentioned anything about a car being on the shoulder.

I noted that I once almost ran into a car parked in the travel lane.  as in, the #1 lane.  as in, where vehicles expect to be doing 75mph safely.

I wish he had kept his lights on while parked like a dumb fuck.

but, more significantly, I wish he had found a significantly less asinine place to park his worthless drunken cockpunching hind!

you may now go back to picking nits about cars parked legally on the shoulder.

Nobody said he was on the shoulder.  Geez.

[agentsteel53]

Nobody said he was on the shoulder.  Geez.

except for the last several posts discussing that exact possibility.  Geezer Butler.

[Special K]

Nobody said he was on the shoulder.  Geez.

except for the last several posts discussing that exact possibility.  Geezer Butler.

I believe the sentiment was that he should have been on the shoulder.  RIF

[agentsteel53]

my point was that parking in a travel lane is so significantly more egregious a violation of social norms, that to nitpick whether or not a hypothetical car which is on the shoulder should be using lights or not ... well, that just misses the point entirely.

it's like saying that someone shot up a theater, so should we use hearing protection when we go to the range?