“Already mandated in most developed nation”
“Bring $6.5 Billion in benefits”
“Save hundreds of lives”
“lower fuel consumption and costs”
Basically all anathema in a Republican White House.
If Trump could mandate that all trucks run on coal, he probably would.
Remember folks, regulations are put into place to protect us. All of us. They make roads safer, water cleaner, proper food handling and preparation more assured, and so on. They are not “job-killing” and so on.
Had this been passed by the Bush administration instead of by Barry O, Trump wouldn’t have touched it, but he is still reeling from that burn at the White House Correspondents Dinner from 2011. Snowflakes are real, folks, and in Washington D.C. and Florida golf courses on the weekends, they happen to be orange.
I believe you misinterpreted the article. President Trump is not striking this down. However, it is his EO mandating that any new regulation must be accompanied by the removal of 2 current regulations that may very well keep this from becoming a regulation.
This is what you get when you put in someone impulsive, who only cares about his image and PR, into the White House.
Until he puts country before self, we will continue to see such recklessness and lack of compassion.
I don’t know enough about this regulation to understand the why or why not it may be a benefit to have in place. On the other hand I do know that Trump is not cerebral enough to understand it either. But I guess it’s a tick mark on the “to do” list.
Well, I don’t have a jet but my hands are pretty bigly.
July 7, 2017 at 9:18 am
Brain says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
21
14
How much do these devices cost? Who will install them and how long will it take to install? How will small business truckers afford them?
Noticed none of those questions were answered.
Doug, do you have speed limiting device installed in your car? Cars kill more people than trucks after all. Hopefully you don’t need the government to mandate it before you would install one. Also why stop at trucks? If it saves just one life it should be worth it to you right? We should also mandate the install breathalyzers in every car as well so there will be no more drunk drivers. Why haven’t you installed one of these in your car? Cost shouldn’t matter.
a) My car does go over 60MPH – however, it won’t go over 155MPH because that’s the limit at which my car manufacturer set the governor to kick in.
b) I’m sorry Brain, I didn’t realize I had ever posted that “all regulations were good.” I certainly don’t believe that, so I don’t know why I would’ve written it.
c) I didn’t believe your question about breathalyzers was a serious one — I didn’t think anyone would sincerely compare the dangers of driving marginally above the speed limit to be just as dangerous as drunk driving.
July 10, 2017 at 2:32 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Regulations are good. All of them. LOL.
What a liberal tool. Less federal regulation is good and Obozo was hell bent to regulate everything……everything. Remember Doug, ‘you didn’t build that’…..regulations did !! You are too funny. Thank you.
Never said all regulations… But yes, regulations are to protect working class people from exploitation and danger. That much is obvious.
and “you didn’t build that” was regarding the fact that companies that use the resources of the land around them, its prior and continued development, etc.
“You didn’t build that” refers to the roads, the electrical grid, internet infrastructure, piping, police that keeps businesses safe, fire departments, colleges which train future employees, etc.
It didn’t mean “You didn’t build your business” Go look at the whole quote and quit being so disingenuous or deliberately ignorant. You aren’t Agent, nor are you Vladi, quit acting like them.
It could be that I know exactly what I’m saying and that I know exactly how to say it to make my point. And I say that regulations, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad, but they can become onerous in a hurry. And regulations are not always put in place to protect us and I believe that you didn’t think that through before you wrote it. Some regulations have been put in place to restrict trade and others to generate tax revenues. Carte blanc statements rarely pass muster when considered even briefly.
Not all republicans are bad. Not all conservatives get all their news from Fox or listen to Rush Limbaugh or……..
Is name calling the only thing you haters know how to do?
You water down your own arguments with such childish behavior.
You would be much more effective without name calling.
Regulations like this are a prime example of unnecessary government regulation hurting small business. It is already illegal for the trucks to speed. Most trucks do not speed. Yet this rule wants to make it mandatory for all companies with trucks to install expensive speed regulators. This will put millions of owner/operators and small businesses out of business with almost zero benefit to public safety.
So let’s say you own a truck in Florida. The Speed limit there is 75 mph. Is that what the limiter will limit you to? Let’s say you had a delivery run to California. The speed limit there is 55. Now your Florida truck can still speed and is still “dangerous”. However, to get to California, you have to drive through Texas. The speed limit there is 85. So you are just as dangerous only doing 75 (and even more dangerous only doing 55) then you would be if you were speeding. (statistics show more accidents are caused by people driving under the speed limit then above it.).
So this law not only hurts small business, and is redundant, it actually makes roads less safe.
Your reasoning has so many holes, it will now be called a Swiss Argument. You are making assumptions based on assumptions, none of which are actually supported by facts, research, or even logic.
Doug Fisher,
I must say that I am somewhat confused by your comment. Although I support getting everyone to drive in a safe and prudent manner part of David’s point is valid. Different states and even highways within a state have different speed limits for valid reasons such as traffic flow and curves. So lets say they decide to set the speed limiting device at 70 mph
and a driver is going down a highway with a speed limit of 50 mph. The driver could still do 70 which is 20 over the posted limit and very unsafe.
If they truly want a device like this to work it would not be via a set speed but rather by a national database of posted limits and then adjust the speed limiter based upon GPS location. Most GPS devices already have this information so the cost I would think would not be huge for any reasonably modern vehicle. Require that each truck have a GPS device that can interface with the onboard computer in the truck via the diagnostic port and adjust the speed limiter based on the data.
Could a trucker disconnect the device certainly but make the truckers CDL be at risk if they do so even once and get caught and I think they will probably comply.
The speed differential argument is bogus, pushed by truck drivers who like to speed to make a little more money, and by shippers and brokers who like that truck drivers get angry at the government and safety advocates instead of them, who are actually responsible for the decline in treatment and pay of truck drivers. People who push this bs claim that there is data and stats a plenty regarding speed differential, but when you call them on it they stop responding.
According to a recent study by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation found speed-related, at-fault collisions involving large commercial vehicles fell by 73-percent after speed-limiter legislation took effect in Ontario.
The study concluded there is no evidence speed limiters have contributed to an increase in truck drivers involved in other types of collisions, despite some skeptics saying so.
The year-long study conducted between 2014-2015 examined data from pre- (2006-2008) and post- (2010-2012) speed-limiter legislation by using fatal, injury and police reported property damage collisions on high-speed highways. It also looked at large vehicle driver speed data, among other real-world data.
The Ontario Trucking Association, a strong proponent of mandatory speed limiters, worked closely with the Ontario government to get the legislation passed.
The study found there is no evidence to indicate worse collision outcomes for large truck drivers post 2009. Also, the percentage of truck drivers who experienced a rear-end collision stayed the same from pre- to post legislation.
Since this is on insurance journal. Lets talk about the affect in the insurance marketplace. First, we all know auto insurance has been skyrocketing like crazy. Trucking being the main culprit. The trucking market across the US is as volatile as it can be. I specialize in writing non public transportation, and I can tell you, if the government isn’t going to put regulations like this in place, then the insurance companies will. It’s about making money on their end, and they have come to the point where they can’t underwrite risks that don’t show the absolute best industry practices. That means they need to have GPS tracking, speed limiters, and even dash cameras to help reduce the risk of a claim. If not, these trucking companies are going to find their insurance in less than favorable markets. Which means, in the northeast, that small business owners (typically less than 20 power units) can see pricing of $10,000 to $20,000 per unit. Now, if its between spending the money for speed limiters or seeing a massive increase in insurance.. I am sure business owners will make the right decision.
I still haven’t been given a good answer for why dash cameras aren’t ubiquitous in our country (not specifically on this site, just in general).
The time and money it would save carriers would be monumental. Why not incentivize insureds with a “dashcam discount” – say 2% off your premium each year if you have a dashcam recorder (which could be retroactively removed should you not have recorded video of the incident when you actually have a loss).
I bet many folks would drive a whole lot safer if they knew their actions, and the actions of all others on the road, were being recorded and would be used as evidence against them if a loss occurs.
This proposed regulation does not apply to existing power units, only to new trucks manufactured after the regulation goes into effect.
This will not cost small trucking companies, or any trucking company, until they purchase a new truck.
Many smaller trucking companies, especially if they serve a smaller locale, use owner-operators. The trucking company leases the truck and operator for a set fee. Thus the cost of the governor is borne by the truck owner, and passes to the small trucking company in the lease.
with the fuel savings and potential reduction in insurance per power unit, it is well worth the cost.
Perplexed, speeding cars who are texting while driving cause many times more accidents than trucks. By the way David, the speed limit on Interstates in Texas is 75. Cars go 85 and trucks go the speed limit.
This is a state issue on speed limits, not a federal one. Way too many regulations were passed in the last 8 years. Time to get a handle on it and get the budget in order.
Agent – I am not refuting anything you said and I’m not implying your argument against texters being dangerous is wrong, but last time I was in Texas, highway speed limits varied from 65MPH to 70MPH to 75MPH to
80MPH and even up to 85MPH. Is that still true today?
Rosenblatt, Texas did change the Interstate limit from 70 to 75 MPH. Non Interstate varies from 65 to 70 MPH. Don’t know about the toll roads since I don’t use them. What is it in Rhode Island?
You’re a fool if you can’t tell the difference between a private passenger vehicle and an 80,000lb commercial vehicle. It doesnt take much for 80,000 pounds to destroy the object in front of it.
Not only are they bigger, they are slower to stop, harder to control, and they drive many more miles per year. 68k/yr on average for combo-trucks vs 10k/yr private passenger.
The insurance industry could expedite the use of speed limiters by requiring them as an underwriting requisite. Alternatively, they could surcharge trucking risks who choose to go without. Sure, the self insured carriers could avoid the requirement, but many of them also carry stop loss coverage.
“Already mandated in most developed nation”
“Bring $6.5 Billion in benefits”
“Save hundreds of lives”
“lower fuel consumption and costs”
Basically all anathema in a Republican White House.
If Trump could mandate that all trucks run on coal, he probably would.
Remember folks, regulations are put into place to protect us. All of us. They make roads safer, water cleaner, proper food handling and preparation more assured, and so on. They are not “job-killing” and so on.
Had this been passed by the Bush administration instead of by Barry O, Trump wouldn’t have touched it, but he is still reeling from that burn at the White House Correspondents Dinner from 2011. Snowflakes are real, folks, and in Washington D.C. and Florida golf courses on the weekends, they happen to be orange.
Doug Fisher,
I believe you misinterpreted the article. President Trump is not striking this down. However, it is his EO mandating that any new regulation must be accompanied by the removal of 2 current regulations that may very well keep this from becoming a regulation.
This is what you get when you put in someone impulsive, who only cares about his image and PR, into the White House.
Until he puts country before self, we will continue to see such recklessness and lack of compassion.
I don’t know enough about this regulation to understand the why or why not it may be a benefit to have in place. On the other hand I do know that Trump is not cerebral enough to understand it either. But I guess it’s a tick mark on the “to do” list.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Well, I don’t have a jet but my hands are pretty bigly.
How much do these devices cost? Who will install them and how long will it take to install? How will small business truckers afford them?
Noticed none of those questions were answered.
Doug, do you have speed limiting device installed in your car? Cars kill more people than trucks after all. Hopefully you don’t need the government to mandate it before you would install one. Also why stop at trucks? If it saves just one life it should be worth it to you right? We should also mandate the install breathalyzers in every car as well so there will be no more drunk drivers. Why haven’t you installed one of these in your car? Cost shouldn’t matter.
“Doug, do you have speed limiting device installed in your car?”
We all do — they’re called governors.
My governor, the great Rick Scott, is too busy to sit in my car and tell me to slow down should I exceed the speed limit!
Yay jokes. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming of on topic posts…
Yes the great man who oversaw the largest Medicare fraud in history and had to plead the 5th 75 times. Conservative, Christian values.
So your car only goes 60mph?
Also why just stop at trucks? No answer for the breathalyzer either I see. I thought all regulations were good?
a) My car does go over 60MPH – however, it won’t go over 155MPH because that’s the limit at which my car manufacturer set the governor to kick in.
b) I’m sorry Brain, I didn’t realize I had ever posted that “all regulations were good.” I certainly don’t believe that, so I don’t know why I would’ve written it.
c) I didn’t believe your question about breathalyzers was a serious one — I didn’t think anyone would sincerely compare the dangers of driving marginally above the speed limit to be just as dangerous as drunk driving.
Regulations are good. All of them. LOL.
What a liberal tool. Less federal regulation is good and Obozo was hell bent to regulate everything……everything. Remember Doug, ‘you didn’t build that’…..regulations did !! You are too funny. Thank you.
Never said all regulations… But yes, regulations are to protect working class people from exploitation and danger. That much is obvious.
and “you didn’t build that” was regarding the fact that companies that use the resources of the land around them, its prior and continued development, etc.
“You didn’t build that” refers to the roads, the electrical grid, internet infrastructure, piping, police that keeps businesses safe, fire departments, colleges which train future employees, etc.
It didn’t mean “You didn’t build your business” Go look at the whole quote and quit being so disingenuous or deliberately ignorant. You aren’t Agent, nor are you Vladi, quit acting like them.
It could be that I know exactly what I’m saying and that I know exactly how to say it to make my point. And I say that regulations, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad, but they can become onerous in a hurry. And regulations are not always put in place to protect us and I believe that you didn’t think that through before you wrote it. Some regulations have been put in place to restrict trade and others to generate tax revenues. Carte blanc statements rarely pass muster when considered even briefly.
Not all republicans are bad. Not all conservatives get all their news from Fox or listen to Rush Limbaugh or……..
Is name calling the only thing you haters know how to do?
You water down your own arguments with such childish behavior.
You would be much more effective without name calling.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
David,
1. Every tractor-trailer made in the United States since 1992 has a governor that can limit the top speed the truck can drive.
2. If this minor inconvenience closes down a business, I must question how viable a business it was to begin with.
3. This will save lives, period.
Co-signed.
Coupled with the fact that speed limiters are not very expensive, this was never going to be a job-killer.
Silly facts.
Agree!
These devices save lives and protect all of us on the highway.
So let’s say you own a truck in Florida. The Speed limit there is 75 mph. Is that what the limiter will limit you to? Let’s say you had a delivery run to California. The speed limit there is 55. Now your Florida truck can still speed and is still “dangerous”. However, to get to California, you have to drive through Texas. The speed limit there is 85. So you are just as dangerous only doing 75 (and even more dangerous only doing 55) then you would be if you were speeding. (statistics show more accidents are caused by people driving under the speed limit then above it.).
So this law not only hurts small business, and is redundant, it actually makes roads less safe.
Your reasoning has so many holes, it will now be called a Swiss Argument. You are making assumptions based on assumptions, none of which are actually supported by facts, research, or even logic.
Doug Fisher,
I must say that I am somewhat confused by your comment. Although I support getting everyone to drive in a safe and prudent manner part of David’s point is valid. Different states and even highways within a state have different speed limits for valid reasons such as traffic flow and curves. So lets say they decide to set the speed limiting device at 70 mph
and a driver is going down a highway with a speed limit of 50 mph. The driver could still do 70 which is 20 over the posted limit and very unsafe.
If they truly want a device like this to work it would not be via a set speed but rather by a national database of posted limits and then adjust the speed limiter based upon GPS location. Most GPS devices already have this information so the cost I would think would not be huge for any reasonably modern vehicle. Require that each truck have a GPS device that can interface with the onboard computer in the truck via the diagnostic port and adjust the speed limiter based on the data.
Could a trucker disconnect the device certainly but make the truckers CDL be at risk if they do so even once and get caught and I think they will probably comply.
Just my 2 cents.
The speed differential argument is bogus, pushed by truck drivers who like to speed to make a little more money, and by shippers and brokers who like that truck drivers get angry at the government and safety advocates instead of them, who are actually responsible for the decline in treatment and pay of truck drivers. People who push this bs claim that there is data and stats a plenty regarding speed differential, but when you call them on it they stop responding.
According to a recent study by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation found speed-related, at-fault collisions involving large commercial vehicles fell by 73-percent after speed-limiter legislation took effect in Ontario.
The study concluded there is no evidence speed limiters have contributed to an increase in truck drivers involved in other types of collisions, despite some skeptics saying so.
The year-long study conducted between 2014-2015 examined data from pre- (2006-2008) and post- (2010-2012) speed-limiter legislation by using fatal, injury and police reported property damage collisions on high-speed highways. It also looked at large vehicle driver speed data, among other real-world data.
The Ontario Trucking Association, a strong proponent of mandatory speed limiters, worked closely with the Ontario government to get the legislation passed.
The study found there is no evidence to indicate worse collision outcomes for large truck drivers post 2009. Also, the percentage of truck drivers who experienced a rear-end collision stayed the same from pre- to post legislation.
Since this is on insurance journal. Lets talk about the affect in the insurance marketplace. First, we all know auto insurance has been skyrocketing like crazy. Trucking being the main culprit. The trucking market across the US is as volatile as it can be. I specialize in writing non public transportation, and I can tell you, if the government isn’t going to put regulations like this in place, then the insurance companies will. It’s about making money on their end, and they have come to the point where they can’t underwrite risks that don’t show the absolute best industry practices. That means they need to have GPS tracking, speed limiters, and even dash cameras to help reduce the risk of a claim. If not, these trucking companies are going to find their insurance in less than favorable markets. Which means, in the northeast, that small business owners (typically less than 20 power units) can see pricing of $10,000 to $20,000 per unit. Now, if its between spending the money for speed limiters or seeing a massive increase in insurance.. I am sure business owners will make the right decision.
I still haven’t been given a good answer for why dash cameras aren’t ubiquitous in our country (not specifically on this site, just in general).
The time and money it would save carriers would be monumental. Why not incentivize insureds with a “dashcam discount” – say 2% off your premium each year if you have a dashcam recorder (which could be retroactively removed should you not have recorded video of the incident when you actually have a loss).
I bet many folks would drive a whole lot safer if they knew their actions, and the actions of all others on the road, were being recorded and would be used as evidence against them if a loss occurs.
This proposed regulation does not apply to existing power units, only to new trucks manufactured after the regulation goes into effect.
This will not cost small trucking companies, or any trucking company, until they purchase a new truck.
Many smaller trucking companies, especially if they serve a smaller locale, use owner-operators. The trucking company leases the truck and operator for a set fee. Thus the cost of the governor is borne by the truck owner, and passes to the small trucking company in the lease.
with the fuel savings and potential reduction in insurance per power unit, it is well worth the cost.
Sensible post. Full of information. Thanks for posting.
Speeding cars also kill. Do you think it’s okay to put governors on all vehicles?
They already do.
THANK YOU! I’m glad someone else posted they’re aware this already exists in the cars we all drive today.
Perplexed, speeding cars who are texting while driving cause many times more accidents than trucks. By the way David, the speed limit on Interstates in Texas is 75. Cars go 85 and trucks go the speed limit.
This is a state issue on speed limits, not a federal one. Way too many regulations were passed in the last 8 years. Time to get a handle on it and get the budget in order.
Agent – I am not refuting anything you said and I’m not implying your argument against texters being dangerous is wrong, but last time I was in Texas, highway speed limits varied from 65MPH to 70MPH to 75MPH to
80MPH and even up to 85MPH. Is that still true today?
Rosenblatt, Texas did change the Interstate limit from 70 to 75 MPH. Non Interstate varies from 65 to 70 MPH. Don’t know about the toll roads since I don’t use them. What is it in Rhode Island?
I don’t live or drive in Rhode Island, but according to google:
65 MPH (Exit 1-8); 55MPH (Exit 8-16); 45-55 MPH (Exit 16-30)
You’re a fool if you can’t tell the difference between a private passenger vehicle and an 80,000lb commercial vehicle. It doesnt take much for 80,000 pounds to destroy the object in front of it.
So, would you be ok with stepping in front of a ‘lighter weight’ car moving 20 mph?
If not, your point is … pointless.
Checkmate, liberals.
Not only are they bigger, they are slower to stop, harder to control, and they drive many more miles per year. 68k/yr on average for combo-trucks vs 10k/yr private passenger.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/vm1.cfm
Tesla can’t seem to tell a passenger car from an 18 wheeler. What is your point?
Do you feel it, Agent?
The insurance industry could expedite the use of speed limiters by requiring them as an underwriting requisite. Alternatively, they could surcharge trucking risks who choose to go without. Sure, the self insured carriers could avoid the requirement, but many of them also carry stop loss coverage.
really dude?
@Fisher, the Don Rickles of the IJ boards:
I have no problem with REASONABLE truck regs.
I have big problems with the hypocrisy of Libitterals, none of which you dispelled with your meandering, insignificant post.
Adding personal attacks to buttress your position only discredits you in the eyes of impartial judges.
Speed limiters are hypocritical, unreasonable Truck regulations?
LOL, ok.
You couldn’t answer anything in my post because you know it embarrasses your own hypocrisy.