Restrictions that ban farmers from transporting hay on interstates in Illinois are lifted for the rest of 2012 until Dec 31.
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=10536 (http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=10536)
SPRINGFIELD — Illinois Transportation Secretary Ann L. Schneider today announced a new policy which allows farmers and other agriculture industry workers to transport hay loads of up to 12 feet in width on all state routes, including interstates. The 2012 summer drought adversely affected the production of hay due to pasture conditions, and this action will significantly improve efficiency in the processing and transportation of hay throughout Illinois. Previously, farmers were permitted to transport hay loads up to 12 feet in width on state roadways, but did not include the use of interstates.
"Coming from a farming community, I understand the severe challenges and unpredictability the weather can have on the overall production demands of the agricultural industry," said Secretary Schneider. "This crucial temporary change in policy equips farmers and truck operators with a special opportunity to cut transportation costs and travel times throughout the remaining harvesting season."
A copy of the official authorization must be in possession of the operator as they move hay loads and will need to be available upon request by law enforcement or the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). In addition, vehicle owners and operators would take responsibility for any damage caused directly or indirectly by the movement. All loads more than 8 feet 6 inches in width, allowed during specific time periods, must display an operable oscillating, rotating, or flashing amber lights. "Oversize load" signs are mandatory on the front and rear of all vehicles with loads over 10 feet in width.
"The Department of Agriculture appreciates and fully supports efforts such as this to assist our farmers during this prolonged drought and early harvest season," Acting Director of Agriculture Bob Flider said.
This authorization is effective immediately and expires December 31, 2012. To access IDOT's official notice or to view additional guidelines of this opportunity, please visit http://www.dot.il.gov/road/overweight.html
Interesting that there's apparently a strong safety reason for keeping hay off interstate highways (otherwise, why have such a policy to begin with?), but that the economic conditions dictate temporarily allowing it.
And, it's OK to haul hay on a expressway or non-Interstate freeway at posted speeds, but not an Interstate (which often has the same posted speeds)?
I don't get the purpose of having a temporary change in policy. Either it's safe to do (in which case it should be allowed all the time), or it's not (in which case this is putting highway safety at risk to pander to the farming community).
If there is such a prohibition in Kentucky, I am unaware of it. I see trucks hauling hay all the time on all classifications of roads, including interstates.
So, basically, trucks can be trucks for the rest of the year. Makes total sense to me. What was dangerous about hauling hay on the Interstate before, assuming they kept over the 40 mph minimum?
Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
So, basically, trucks can be trucks for the rest of the year. Makes total sense to me. What was dangerous about hauling hay on the Interstate before, assuming they kept over the 40 mph minimum?
45 mph minimum in Illinois.
Perhaps the fact that hay can easily come off, requiring more frequent cleanup?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imperialhaysales.com%2Fimages%2Fhay_truck.jpg&hash=158a937665aa397910672323e26c1df6b7cb3395)
Quote from: Brandon on September 01, 2012, 08:16:52 PM
45 mph minimum in Illinois.
Really? Dang, it's been too long.
Quote from: NE2 on September 01, 2012, 08:49:34 PM
Perhaps the fact that hay can easily come off, requiring more frequent cleanup?
[img
That's what straps and tarps are for, not prohibitions.
You still have individual pieces of hay come off. Bad enough that most trucks pepper my car with debris, but to have some contaminate the pristine road surface with pieces of hay?
Quote from: deanej on September 02, 2012, 12:29:54 PM
You still have individual pieces of hay come off. Bad enough that most trucks pepper my car with debris, but to have some contaminate the pristine road surface with pieces of hay?
:confused:
:-D :-D :-D :-D
You ever been to Illinois?
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 02, 2012, 04:40:29 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 02, 2012, 12:29:54 PM
You still have individual pieces of hay come off. Bad enough that most trucks pepper my car with debris, but to have some contaminate the pristine road surface with pieces of hay?
:confused:
:-D :-D :-D :-D
You ever been to Illinois?
The hay and the road surface are the least of your worries with all the FIBs around. :ded:
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2012, 07:37:06 PM
The hay and the road surface are the least of your worries with all the FIBs around. :ded:
Fucking Illinois... Brandons?
Quote from: NE2 on September 02, 2012, 08:06:03 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2012, 07:37:06 PM
The hay and the road surface are the least of your worries with all the FIBs around. :ded:
Fucking Illinois... Brandons?
Hey, we're trying to cut down on cursing in this forum. The "B" word is right out.
Quote from: JREwing78 on September 01, 2012, 07:43:57 AM
I don't get the purpose of having a temporary change in policy. Either it's safe to do (in which case it should be allowed all the time), or it's not (in which case this is putting highway safety at risk to pander to the farming community).
It's generally not as safe, thus the temporary nature of the policy. Changes in policy are common in times of emergency.
Quote from: Steve on September 02, 2012, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 02, 2012, 08:06:03 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2012, 07:37:06 PM
The hay and the road surface are the least of your worries with all the FIBs around. :ded:
Fucking Illinois... Brandons?
Hey, we're trying to cut down on cursing in this forum. The "B" word is right out.
okay, I'll bite... what's the B word, given the implication that it is so much worse than the F word?
Quote from: deanej on September 02, 2012, 12:29:54 PM
You still have individual pieces of hay come off. Bad enough that most trucks pepper my car with debris, but to have some contaminate the pristine road surface with pieces of hay?
Oh, yeah, that hay is a killer! :rolleyes: I ran over a stalk the other day and had to replace both front tires. :crazy: Then, just yesterday, I hit a small pile of dirt and now I need a new tie rod. :-D
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 04, 2012, 11:54:30 AM
okay, I'll bite... what's the B word, given the implication that it is so much worse than the F word?
Beetaggers.
Quote from: NE2 on September 04, 2012, 04:10:10 PM
Beetaggers.
hey now, you don't have B-word privilege. you've gotta be a beetagger to be allowed to call other people a beetagger.
Quote from: kphoger on September 04, 2012, 04:03:30 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 02, 2012, 12:29:54 PM
You still have individual pieces of hay come off. Bad enough that most trucks pepper my car with debris, but to have some contaminate the pristine road surface with pieces of hay?
Oh, yeah, that hay is a killer! :rolleyes: I ran over a stalk the other day and had to replace both front tires. :crazy: Then, just yesterday, I hit a small pile of dirt and now I need a new tie rod. :-D
The problem is that i's not one stalk of hay. The last time I was behind a truck like that, it was similar to driving in a snow storm.
Again.....
Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2012, 08:14:22 AM
That's what straps and tarps are for, not prohibitions.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to require full-surface tarps than to prohibit the turck altogether?
I suspect it's just Kaldor-Hicks efficient to require straps only, not tarps--in other words, the rest of us will have to tolerate the nuisance because the losses to the hay haulers of having to use full tarps would be greater than the sum of the gains accruing to each of us individually from not having to deal with loose hay on the highway.
(I just finished a six-day, 2000-mile drive in Colorado and New Mexico, so the hay nuisance is very fresh in my mind. A prohibition on hauling hay on Interstates would have been of no benefit to me on this trip, however, because the only two Interstates I used were I-235 and I-25 and I was not on either for more than 30 miles.)
I don't mind hay haulers nearly as much as the gravel haulers out here who can't be bothered to cover their load with a tarp, but apparently have paid off enough senators and lawyers that they have legal immunity if they simply put a sign on the back of the trailer that says "we chip windshields. fuck you."
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 06, 2012, 01:59:03 PM
I suspect it's just Kaldor-Hicks efficient to require straps only, not tarps--in other words, the rest of us will have to tolerate the nuisance because the losses to the hay haulers of having to use full tarps would be greater than the sum of the gains accruing to each of us individually from not having to deal with loose hay on the highway.
(I just finished a six-day, 2000-mile drive in Colorado and New Mexico, so the hay nuisance is very fresh in my mind. A prohibition on hauling hay on Interstates would have been of no benefit to me on this trip, however, because the only two Interstates I used were I-235 and I-25 and I was not on either for more than 30 miles.)
But the prohibition stands as a general rule, only with the current exception. Surely
(using your favorite word) the losses to any given hay hauler would be amortized over time?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2012, 02:17:18 PM
I don't mind hay haulers nearly as much as the gravel haulers out here who can't be bothered to cover their load with a tarp, but apparently have paid off enough senators and lawyers that they have legal immunity if they simply put a sign on the back of the trailer that says "we chip windshields. fuck you."
"Not responsible for vehicle damage" isn't legally true. They just put that there to try to get you to stay back to limit their liability.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 06, 2012, 03:58:33 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2012, 02:17:18 PM
I don't mind hay haulers nearly as much as the gravel haulers out here who can't be bothered to cover their load with a tarp, but apparently have paid off enough senators and lawyers that they have legal immunity if they simply put a sign on the back of the trailer that says "we chip windshields. fuck you."
"Not responsible for vehicle damage" isn't legally true. They just put that there to try to get you to stay back to limit their liability.
Kind of like parents signing that they agree not to sue the school if their kid dies on a field trip.
"Well, sorry, but you DID sign this piece of paper here."
Quote from: kphoger on September 06, 2012, 02:26:54 PMBut the prohibition stands as a general rule, only with the current exception. Surely (using your favorite word) the losses to any given hay hauler would be amortized over time?
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.
As Jake points out, hay is intrinsically less troublesome than gravel and other heavy materials which can do actual damage to vehicle bodies.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 06, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 06, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
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?
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 06, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on September 07, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
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!
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.
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:26:54 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
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.
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
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?
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.
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.
I encountered this in Suffolk a couple months ago. I thought it was a small fridge at the time.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q994Kng-31M/UAREKlDoKCI/AAAAAAAACuA/LgTvT4eFguU/s816/DSC01120.JPG)
Looks like a styrofoam block, or one of those archery targets.
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.
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:26:54 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
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.
Quote from: deanej on September 08, 2012, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: Special K on September 07, 2012, 04:26:54 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 07, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2012, 10:00:16 AM
Looks like a styrofoam block, or one of those archery targets.
Or a styrofoam cooler used for harvested organ transport.
Quote from: Special K on September 09, 2012, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
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.
Quote from: deanej on September 10, 2012, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: Special K on September 09, 2012, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 09, 2012, 11:43:26 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2012, 01:08:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Special K on September 10, 2012, 03:12:20 PM
Nobody said he was on the shoulder. Geez.
except for the last several posts discussing that exact possibility. Geezer Butler.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2012, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: Special K on September 10, 2012, 03:12:20 PM
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
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?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2012, 03:25:37 PM
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?
Actually, the base argument was Deanej's (apparent) assertion that the car should have its lights turned off even if it was in the travel lane. We've since solved that misunderstanding and have moved on. Please let it go.
Going back to the subject of stuff falling into traffic lanes (shall we?) , try spending time in the Los Angeles area and listen to the freeway traffic reports (at least one radio station, KNX-AM 1070 has traffic reports "on the fives" 24/7) and you'd be amazed at the number of reports of items dropped or spilled onto the freeways there. Ladders and mattresses are the two most common things found on the freeways, but you name it, and somebody has dropped one on the freeway at some point or other. (I even remember once somebody dropped a kitchen sink on the freeway, which would complete the list.) You could furnish an entire subdivision with all the tables, chairs, desks, lamps, beds and sofas that have ended up on L.A. freeways down through the years. When I lived there, I used to joke that Christmas doesn't officially begin in Los Angeles until somebody drops the first Christmas tree onto the freeway. (Once, a big rig hauling Christmas trees dumped the entire load of them when he tried to take a transition ramp too fast. I guess he wanted to get the holiday season in L.A. off in grand style that year. :-D) The amount of food stuffs (tomatoes, oranges, milk, chicken, lettuce) spilled onto the freeways every year could feed a small nation, say Equatorial Guinea.
And you can imagine the pandemonium among motorists when an armored truck full of cash overturns and spills its load. :-D
I've called 911 for the aforementioned parked car, a refrigerator, and a "large piece of industrial equipment" (my exact words!) lying in a freeway travel lane.
a friend and I once moved a washing machine out of the travel lane of a two-laner where it was just easiest to park on the shoulder and move the item ourselves.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2012, 06:21:06 PM
a friend and I once moved a washing machine out of the travel lane of a two-laner where it was just easiest to park on the shoulder and move the item ourselves.
Gee, you should've taken it home. If you're married, it would've been a nice surprise for your wife. ("Look dear, I got you a new washing machine!" :-D) Or sold it at your next garage sale. (If asked to explain the dings and dents, just say it's the spin cycle--it fell off the truck and went spinning down the road. :D)
Quote from: hm insulators on September 12, 2012, 06:19:02 PM
And you can imagine the pandemonium among motorists when an armored truck full of cash overturns and spills its load. :-D
Actually, it was surprisingly civil (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/12/us/rain-of-cash-in-car-crash-tempts-poor-from-miami.html), from some of the reports; it crashed above one of the poorest neighborhoods in Miami.
I heard most of it was coinage, so I don't think anyone was charged with theft.
My most interesting "almost hit object in the road" story happened on I-93 NB near River Road in Andover (MA) and involves a Little Tikes plastic basketball hoop. It was lying on top of a bunch of other stuff (all unsecured) in the back of a pickup truck that was about four car lengths ahead of me when a gust of wind caught it and sent it up over the tailgate. Swerved into the right lane and passed the hoop just as it hit the pavement. I then pulled over, called MassDOT's highway operations center to report it (they used to have a special cell number - #321- you could call to report "non-immediate' emergencies like road debris), and went on my way. The driver of the pickup truck was either unaware he lost part of his load, or was unwilling to go back and try to retrieve it, because he kept on going.
Several miles north, after passing the Windham (NH) weigh station, I notice a couple of vehicles pulled off the shoulder onto the grass, and people outside talking. One was the pickup truck, with even fewer items in the back than when they lost the basketball hoop. The second vehicle was a minivan with a partially smashed-in windshield, presumably damaged from something else in the bed that had decided to become airborne.